-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 628
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add compatibility tests for v5.0.x #2370
Conversation
type: choice | ||
options: | ||
- release/v5.0.x | ||
inputs: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
missed the inputs
field which enables the UI drop down.
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "v3.0.0", | ||
"chain-b-tag": "release-v5.0.x", | ||
"chain-image": "ghcr.io/cosmos/ibc-go-simd", | ||
"entrypoint": "TestClientTestSuite", | ||
"test": "TestClientUpdateProposal_Succeeds" | ||
}, | ||
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "v2.0.0", | ||
"chain-b-tag": "release-v5.0.x", | ||
"chain-image": "ghcr.io/cosmos/ibc-go-simd", | ||
"entrypoint": "TestClientTestSuite", | ||
"test": "TestClientUpdateProposal_Succeeds" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
these 2 tests are failing, is this expected?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sync'd with @charleenfei and it looks like the TrustingPeriod
field was backported to 2.4 and 3.2 (not 2.0/3.0!)
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "release-v5.0.x", | ||
"chain-b-tag": "v3.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think we could use 3.3.x here (the security release)
}, | ||
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "v3.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same comment as above
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "release-v5.0.x", | ||
"chain-b-tag": "v2.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2.1.0 is the security release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
just the comment on using the security releases for the v3 and v2 lines otherwise nice!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent! ❤️
@@ -1,12 +1,485 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"include": [ | |||
{ | |||
"chain-binary": "simd", | |||
"chain-a-tag": "release-v5.0.x", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Food for thought: Base tests which should work for any version combination, maybe it'd be possible to swap out the "branch-to-test" and then only maintain files for tests which require logic for which cross versions to test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually I was just speaking with @crodriguezvega about this and I think we may be able to make some changes and leverage some of the built in matrix generation features of github actions to make some of these permutations re-usable (swap out the branch as you said).
I will update the versions as you suggested and take a look into seeing if this can be simplified to work a bit better with our use case!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably change v4.0.0 -> v4.1.0 and v2.1.0 -> v2.4.0
It might be nice to actually add every minor release since there can be state machine breaking changes for each minor release, but this looks good to me for now
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "release-v5.0.x", | ||
"chain-b-tag": "v4.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"chain-b-tag": "v4.0.0", | |
"chain-b-tag": "v4.1.0", |
}, | ||
{ | ||
"chain-binary": "simd", | ||
"chain-a-tag": "v2.1.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"chain-a-tag": "v2.1.0", | |
"chain-a-tag": "v2.4.0", |
I think this is the latest release. Should we just use the release branch?
Edit: would prefer to use final release instead of release branch so as not to test against unreleased changes
shall we close this one in favour of #2396 |
Description
While the json file is a bit noisy and has a lot of duplication, this is something we could spend time to generate with tooling if it becomes an issue. For now I think it will be fine to maintain by hand.
This workflow was triggered by the UI.After bumping versions for client testbump v2 and v3
You can test this by going to
Actions
->Compatibility E2E
->run workflow
(choose this branch - not main) -> clickRun Workflow
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/
) or specification (x/<module>/spec/
)godoc
comments.Unreleased
section inCHANGELOG.md
Files changed
in the Github PR explorerCodecov Report
in the comment section below once CI passes