feat: gw_mainnet_v1 regression testing workflow #153
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overview
Description
The PR provides a mainnet_v1 regression testing workflow that can be triggered manually on GitHub.
Provide changes:
gw_mainnet_v1
Supported test cases
Details
New secrets
The PR provides a new GitHub workflow, which requires some new secrets:
Network identity
We used to identify current networking by checking network's
chainId
, but I think it's better to useenum
andnetwork.name
.Based on that idea, the PR provides a set of util functions (and enum values) to check the identity of current network by its
name
.The new set of util functions is not perfect, if you think there's better way to do it, please let me know.
Right now, this is how we check the identity of current networking:
Total spent of the run
The PR provides a new test case to replace the
network
test case, which will print logs when all tests are done:The logs above give us a clear view of how much capacity is spent in current run.
Although it may not perfectly reflect the actual cost in every situation (if we run the same test with the same set of accounts at the same time, the calculated info must be wrong), but I think logging it is better than doing nothing.