You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We want to verify that Forest is syntactically compatible with a known subset of the Lotus RPC calls. This means our requests/response pairs follow the same JSON schema. We also want to verify that our responses are sensible. Exactly what this means depends on the RPC call in question, unfortunately.
We can assert that blockchain-related RPC calls return exactly the same as their Lotus counterpart (for example, ChainGetTipSetByHeight must return the same answer in both Forest and Lotus). Non-blockchain RPC calls (such as MpoolPending) are more difficult to test, and we may settle for merely testing the JSON schema.
Other information and links
Using glif.io for compatibility testing isn't ideal since they do not give access to several important RPC methods.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Issue summary
Notes and thoughts.
We want to verify that Forest is syntactically compatible with a known subset of the Lotus RPC calls. This means our requests/response pairs follow the same JSON schema. We also want to verify that our responses are sensible. Exactly what this means depends on the RPC call in question, unfortunately.
We can assert that blockchain-related RPC calls return exactly the same as their Lotus counterpart (for example,
ChainGetTipSetByHeight
must return the same answer in both Forest and Lotus). Non-blockchain RPC calls (such asMpoolPending
) are more difficult to test, and we may settle for merely testing the JSON schema.Other information and links
Using glif.io for compatibility testing isn't ideal since they do not give access to several important RPC methods.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: