-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
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
test: Add some mising State Test export features #807
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #807 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 97.93% 97.98% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 116 116
Lines 11309 11370 +61
==========================================
+ Hits 11076 11141 +65
+ Misses 233 229 -4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
2e07baf
to
2646cc4
Compare
2680d79
to
bae296a
Compare
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ class state_transition : public ExportableFixture | |||
Transaction tx{ | |||
.gas_limit = block.gas_limit, | |||
.max_gas_price = block.base_fee + 1, | |||
.max_priority_gas_price = 1, | |||
.max_priority_gas_price = block.base_fee + 1, |
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.
Why does this change? This transaction field in the spec is called max_priority_fee_per_gas
and is what is added on top of block base fee.
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.
Ah I guess because default is legacy transaction? It's confusing that Transaction
has this field for legacy.
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.
Legacy transaction requires these values to be the same. So I made the default agree as well.
Maybe this is not great for clarity of tests, but EIP-1559 calculations work for legacy transactions if these two fields have the same value of legacy gas price.
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.
Maybe this is not great for clarity of tests, but EIP-1559 calculations work for legacy transactions if these two fields have the same value of legacy gas price.
Can't these calculations check transaction type and ignore this field (i.e. consider it equal max_gas_price) for legacy?
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.
Or another idea is that Transaction
constructor for legacy should enforce this
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.
Yes they can, but there is no time to do this change now.
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.
Then at least add
assert(tx.type != Legacy || tx.max_priority_gas_price == tx.max_gas_price);
to state transition.
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.
But it also can be just
if (tx.type == Legacy)
tx.max_priority_gas_price = tx.max_gas_price;
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 improved the asserts in TearDown()
a bit.
It looks to me that we should have something like TestBlock
with every field std::optional
and set default values only after test definition. Otherwise, the test definitions must fight with defaults.
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ class state_transition : public ExportableFixture | |||
Transaction tx{ | |||
.gas_limit = block.gas_limit, | |||
.max_gas_price = block.base_fee + 1, | |||
.max_priority_gas_price = 1, | |||
.max_priority_gas_price = block.base_fee + 1, |
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.
Legacy transaction requires these values to be the same. So I made the default agree as well.
Maybe this is not great for clarity of tests, but EIP-1559 calculations work for legacy transactions if these two fields have the same value of legacy gas price.
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ evmc_revision to_rev(std::string_view s) | |||
return EVMC_FRONTIER; | |||
if (s == "Homestead") | |||
return EVMC_HOMESTEAD; | |||
if (s == "EIP150") | |||
if (s == "Tangerine Whistle" || s == "EIP150") |
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 may not be the best idea because e.g. geth doesn't understand "Tangerine Whistle".
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 changed this to export as EIP150
and EIP158
... We still accept full revision names.
rev = EVMC_SPURIOUS_DRAGON; | ||
|
||
block_reward = 0; | ||
block.base_fee = 0; |
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.
Is this a valid block?
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 guess for old forks it is.
test/unittests/state_transition.cpp
Outdated
auto& jstorage_keys = je["storageKeys"] = json::json::array(); | ||
for (const auto& k : storage_keys) | ||
jstorage_keys.push_back(hex0x(k)); | ||
ja.push_back(je); |
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.
Maybe makes sense to std::move(je)
expect.tx_error = INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS; | ||
} | ||
|
||
TEST_F(state_transition, blob_tx_insuficient_funds) | ||
{ | ||
rev = EVMC_CANCUN; | ||
block.base_fee = 1; |
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.
@winsvega usually says it should be at least 7 in tests, but I'm not sure exactly why
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.
It is the minimal value by the spec.
Add support for exporting state transition tests: