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

check:construction improvements #119

Closed
AlanVerbner opened this issue Aug 25, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #135
Closed

check:construction improvements #119

AlanVerbner opened this issue Aug 25, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #135
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@AlanVerbner
Copy link

AlanVerbner commented Aug 25, 2020

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

We would like to run check:construction in our CI server and it would be great to have some extra features that will make it easier for us.

Describe the solution you'd like

  1. Run N amount of transfers. It might be good enough to just run a couple fo transfers to check everything is fine, not to run it until the funds are drained (I mean, there is no more to pay for the fees)
  2. Be able to define an address where the funds will be returned (so we don't drain test wallets.

Describe alternatives you've considered

re 2 we might use change_scenario, will that work?

Additional context

We will likely run this using github actions

@AlanVerbner AlanVerbner added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 25, 2020
@AlanVerbner AlanVerbner changed the title chec check:construction improvements Aug 25, 2020
@patrick-ogrady
Copy link
Contributor

patrick-ogrady commented Aug 26, 2020

Thanks for posting this @AlanVerbner! We've been tracking check:construction improvements here: #112.

We already planned on (1), however, hadn't planned on (2). I added it to the scoped work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants