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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
tests: superfluid delegator voting #1586
tests: superfluid delegator voting #1586
Changes from 17 commits
2c87381
f416f6f
6d7c5d4
9f0ff0a
9d33f0d
12d4a57
cac90ee
6904461
ee095d0
e4ec2fb
6a84b6a
966d361
02bbe8c
9767416
eb16e72
a4cabdd
1e7ee23
c3ea676
0a8d28d
6c0e355
4c4358f
e209efb
360abcf
b9b14ef
ff4935c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
(For a future PR) I think we should move these to be independent functions, and think of ways to lower the boilerplate involved with them. (e.g. Go Generics)
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.
This can be removed as it is not used
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 still need to store this value for each validator so we are able to SFS to their operator address
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 was hoping to keep these
Validator
andChain
structs only used for transferring state between the "chain-initialization" part (that happens inside a Docker container) and the test runner part (ine2e
package). The goal of this is to decouple the chain initialization and test runner components as much as possible.I know there is still some coupling present right now but the goal is to eventually get to completely independent components with incremental refactoring.
So this
OperAddress
is never used during chain initialization. I think if we want to keep adding more state toValidator
orChain
structs, we should wrap them into structs that are local to thee2e
package:We already do something similar with
chain.Chain
:osmosis/tests/e2e/e2e_setup_test.go
Lines 40 to 52 in 360abcf
Here, instead of adding the fields directly to
chain.Chain
we wrap it into thechainConfig
structPlease let me know what you think
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.
Should we move this to an issue?
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 can get to it now, if it proves to be a difficult change (it shouldn't be) then I will make an issue instead and merge