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

fix: integration tests ArbToEth #324

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 24, 2024

Conversation

mani99brar
Copy link
Contributor

@mani99brar mani99brar commented Sep 24, 2024

PR-Codex overview

This PR primarily focuses on adjusting the EPOCH_PERIOD and CHALLENGE_PERIOD constants for integration tests in ArbToEth.ts, along with updating error messages and refactoring the challenge function calls for better readability.

Detailed summary

  • Updated EPOCH_PERIOD and CHALLENGE_PERIOD to 600 seconds for Hardhat.
  • Changed error message from "Epoch has not yet passed." to "Invalid epoch."
  • Refactored challenge function calls for improved readability using array syntax.

✨ Ask PR-Codex anything about this PR by commenting with /codex {your question}

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Reduced EPOCH_PERIOD and CHALLENGE_PERIOD to 10 minutes for improved testing.
    • Enhanced clarity in error messaging for invalid epoch claims.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Updated method invocation for the challenge function to ensure consistency across tests.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 24, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve updating the EPOCH_PERIOD and CHALLENGE_PERIOD constants in the ArbToEth.ts file from 1800 seconds to 600 seconds. The error message for an invalid epoch claim was simplified. Additionally, the method of invoking the challenge function on the veaOutbox contract was modified to use an explicit function signature call, enhancing clarity. These adjustments were consistently applied throughout the integration tests.

Changes

File Change Summary
contracts/test/integration/ArbToEth.ts - Updated EPOCH_PERIOD to 600 seconds.
- Updated CHALLENGE_PERIOD to 600 seconds.
- Changed error message from "Epoch has not yet passed." to "Invalid epoch."
- Modified method invocation of challenge to use explicit function signature.

Poem

In the meadow where changes bloom,
The seconds now dance, dispelling gloom.
With challenges clear, and epochs bright,
Our tests leap forward, a joyful sight!
Hop along, dear friends, let's celebrate,
For clarity and speed, we elevate! 🐇✨


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?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    -- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai or @coderabbitai title anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
contracts/test/integration/ArbToEth.ts (1)

136-136: Approved, but consider a more specific error message

The error message has been updated to "Invalid epoch." While this change is acceptable, consider using a more specific message to aid in debugging, such as "Invalid epoch: Epoch has not yet passed or is too old."

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4aeed81 and 4936cf2.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • contracts/test/integration/ArbToEth.ts (7 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (4)
contracts/test/integration/ArbToEth.ts (4)

29-30: LGTM: Reduced time periods for faster testing

The EPOCH_PERIOD and CHALLENGE_PERIOD constants have been updated to 600 seconds (10 minutes) for Hardhat testing. This change will speed up the testing process without affecting the overall functionality of the tests.


525-540: LGTM: Improved clarity in challenge function call

The challenge function call has been updated to use a more explicit function signature. This change enhances code readability and reduces potential ambiguity in function resolution, especially if there are overloaded versions of the challenge function.


563-577: LGTM: Consistent application of challenge function call update

This change is consistent with the previous modification to the challenge function call, maintaining uniformity throughout the test file. Good job on ensuring consistency across multiple instances.


781-789: LGTM, but please clarify the new challenger parameter

The startVerification function call has been updated to include a challenger parameter set to the zero address. While this change is likely correct, it wasn't mentioned in the summary of changes. Could you please clarify the purpose of this new parameter and ensure that it's consistent with any updates to the contract interface?

To verify the consistency of this change, please run the following script:

Verification successful

Running updated verification script to check startVerification parameter consistency

The previous script failed due to an unrecognized file type. Please execute the updated script below to search for all occurrences of startVerification in TypeScript files and verify the consistency of the challenger parameter.


Verified: challenger parameter is consistently set to the zero address

All instances of the startVerification function call in contracts/test/integration/ArbToEth.ts include the challenger parameter set to ethers.constants.AddressZero. This confirms that the addition of the challenger parameter is consistently applied across the codebase.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other occurrences of startVerification and verify the parameter consistency

# Search for all occurrences of startVerification in TypeScript files
rg --type typescript 'startVerification\s*\(' -A 10

Length of output: 88


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other occurrences of startVerification and verify the parameter consistency

# Search for all occurrences of startVerification in TypeScript files
rg --type ts 'startVerification\s*\(' -A 10

Length of output: 6221

@mani99brar mani99brar marked this pull request as ready for review September 24, 2024 12:18
@mani99brar mani99brar merged commit 14a7d10 into feat/arbSep-to-sep-testnet Sep 24, 2024
3 of 4 checks passed
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2024
@mani99brar mani99brar deleted the fix/integration-tests branch December 16, 2024 09:59
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.

1 participant