test: fix integration test TestSendEnabled #22620
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
hieuvubk
changed the title
|
have you forgot to push the fix? I only this print statement. Or github doesn't display the diff properly again |
… into hieu/flacky_test
I forgot, thanks for the ping |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
tests/integration/v2/bank/determinisitic_test.go (1)
Line range hint
476-494: Consider these improvements to enhance test robustness.
- Add explicit assertions on the response to verify the send-enabled status matches what was set.
- Consider extracting the min/max count values to named constants for better maintainability.
- Add a comment explaining why we ensure at least one denomination is tested.
+// Min/Max number of denominations to test +const ( + minTestDenoms = 1 + maxTestDenoms = 10 +) + func TestSendEnabled(t *testing.T) { // ... - count := rapid.IntRange(1, 10).Draw(rt, "count") + // Ensure at least one denomination is tested to validate send-enabled functionality + count := rapid.IntRange(minTestDenoms, maxTestDenoms).Draw(rt, "count") // ... + // Verify the response matches our expectations + testdata.DeterministicIterationsV2(t, req, gasMeterFactory, queryFn, assertNonZeroGas, func(t *testing.T, res *banktypes.QuerySendEnabledResponse) { + require.Equal(t, len(denoms), len(res.SendEnabled)) + for _, se := range res.SendEnabled { + require.Contains(t, denoms, se.Denom) + } + })
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
tests/integration/v2/bank/determinisitic_test.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
tests/integration/v2/bank/determinisitic_test.go (3)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
🔇 Additional comments (1)
tests/integration/v2/bank/determinisitic_test.go (1)
476-476: LGTM! This change fixes the flaky test by ensuring at least one denomination is tested.
The modification to set minimum count to 1 eliminates the possibility of testing zero denominations, which was likely causing inconsistent test behavior. This change ensures that the test always validates the send-enabled functionality with at least one denomination.
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
(cherry picked from commit fdb7688)
Description
Closes: #22521
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit