Skip to content
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

e2e: remove e2e related to BTC staking integration #339

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

SebastianElvis
Copy link
Member

@SebastianElvis SebastianElvis commented Dec 11, 2024

Part of babylonlabs-io/babylon-sdk#64

This PR removes all e2e tests related to BTC staking integration. These tests will then be put in babylon-sdk repository (PR)

@SebastianElvis SebastianElvis marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2024 05:12
@SebastianElvis SebastianElvis requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2024 05:12
@SebastianElvis SebastianElvis merged commit 72654c8 into base/consumer-chain-support Dec 13, 2024
18 checks passed
@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor

maurolacy commented Dec 13, 2024

Taking a look at this. What about the e2e tests that depend on babylon? Are you adding a babylon container as a dep / tool in the babylon-sdk repo?

Related / follow-up to this: at some point it would be good to change the docker images handling / building model (i.e. the Docker section in https://github.com/babylonlabs-io/pm/issues/118).

@maurolacy maurolacy deleted the remove-integration-e2e branch December 13, 2024 08:37
@@ -168,5 +168,5 @@ func (s *IBCTransferTestSuite) Test2IBCTransferBack() {
// Check that the balance of the native denom has increased
return math.Abs(float64(balanceA.Add(nativeCoin).AmountOf(nativeDenom).Int64()-
balanceA2.AmountOf(nativeDenom).Int64())) < delta
}, 15*time.Second, 1*time.Second, "Transfer back B was not successful")
}, 1*time.Minute, 1*time.Second, "Transfer back B was not successful")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍🏼

Copy link
Contributor

@maurolacy maurolacy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍🏼Less is more.

@SebastianElvis
Copy link
Member Author

Taking a look at this. What about the e2e tests that depend on babylon? Are you adding a babylon container as a dep / tool in the babylon-sdk repo?

Yes, there is a dockerfile for babylon node in the Babylon SDK PR.

I'd say that this is less ideal as 1) we might need to refer to a branch rather than a tag for non-tagged changes, and 2) everytime the CI needs to build this image

Related / follow-up to this: at some point it would be good to change the docker images handling / building model (i.e. the Docker section in babylonlabs-io/pm#118).

Yes, totally agreed on this. Ideally we need a docker registry for all these docker images

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants