xmtp-qa-testing

Test suite	Status	Run frequency
🚀 Performance		Every 30 min
📬 Delivery		Every 30 min
👋 Gm		Every 30 min
🌎 Geolocation		Every 30 min

Testing scope

This monorepo contains a comprehensive collection of tools for testing and monitoring the XMTP protocol and its implementations.

Architecture

This flowchart illustrates the XMTP protocol's layered architecture and testing scope:

%%{init: {'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor': '#0D1117', 'primaryTextColor': '#c9d1d9', 'primaryBorderColor': '#30363d', 'lineColor': '#8b949e', 'secondaryColor': '#161b22', 'tertiaryColor': '#161b22' }}}%%

flowchart LR
  %% Core components and bindings
  subgraph Bindings["Bindings"]
    wasm["WASM"]
    ffi["FFI"]
    napi["Napi"]
  end

  subgraph SDKs["SDKs"]
    browserSDK["Browser SDK"]
    swiftSDK["Swift SDK"]
    kotlinSDK["Kotlin SDK"]
    reactNativeSDK["React Native SDK"]
    nodesdk["Node SDK"]
  end

  subgraph Applications["Applications"]
    webApps["xmtp.chat"]
    mobileApps["Native Apps"]
    crossPlatformApps["Cross-platform Apps"]
    messagingApps["Convos"]
    botAgents["Bots & Agents"]
    backendServices["Backend Services"]
  end

  centralNode["Node"] --> libxmtp["LibXMTP<br>(openmls)<br>(diesel)"]
  libxmtp --- wasm
  libxmtp --- ffi
  kotlinSDK --- mobileApps
  libxmtp --- napi

  wasm --- browserSDK
  ffi --- swiftSDK
  ffi --- kotlinSDK

  swiftSDK --- reactNativeSDK
  kotlinSDK --- reactNativeSDK

  browserSDK --- webApps

  swiftSDK --- mobileApps

  napi --- nodesdk
  nodesdk --- botAgents
  nodesdk --- backendServices

  decentralNode["Decentralized Nodes"] -.- libxmtp


  reactNativeSDK --- messagingApps
  napi -.- reactNativeSDK

  linkStyle 0,4,12,13 stroke:#f66,stroke-width:4px,stroke-dasharray: 5,5;
  classDef highlightStroke stroke:#f66,color:#c9d1d9,stroke-width:4px;
  class centralNode,libxmtp,webApps,messagingApps,botAgents highlightStroke;

Loading

The highlighted path (red dashed line) in the architecture diagram shows our main testing focus.

LibXMTP is a shared library built in Rust and compiled to WASM, Napi, and FFI bindings. It encapsulates the core cryptography functions of the XMTP messaging protocol. Due to the complexity of the protocol, we are using openmls as the underlying cryptographic library, it's important to test how this bindings perform in their own language environments.

We can test all XMTP bindings using three main applications. We use xmtp.chat to test the Browser SDK's Wasm binding in actual web environments. We use Convos to test the React Native SDK, which uses both Swift and Kotlin FFI bindings for mobile devices. We use agents to test the Node SDK's Napi binding for server functions. This testing method checks the entire protocol across all binding types, making sure different clients work together, messages are saved, and users have the same experience across the XMTP system.

Testing details

• Multi-region testing nodes (us-east, us-west , asia, europe )
• 30-minute automated test execution intervals
• Comprehensive data aggregation in datadog
• Testing directly on top of SDKs for real-world scenarios
• dev and production network covered
• Automated testing for web app xmtp.chat
• Manual testing for react native app
• Human & agents testing for real-world simulations

TLDR: Metrics

• Core SDK Performance: Direct message creation (<500ms), group operations (<200-500ms)
• Network Performance: Server call (<100ms), TLS handshake (<100ms), total processing (<300ms)
• Group Scaling: Supports up to 300 members efficiently (create: 9s, operations: <350ms)
• Regional Performance: US/Europe optimal, Asia/South America higher latency (+46-160%)
• Message Reliability: 100% delivery rate (target: 99.9%), perfect ordering
• Environments: Production consistently outperforms Dev network by 5-9%

Operation performance

Core SDK Operations Performance

Operation	Description	Avg (ms)	Target	Status
createDM	Creating a direct message conversation	254-306	<500ms	✅ On Target
sendGM	Sending a group message	123-132	<200ms	✅ On Target
receiveGM	Receiving a group message	90-94	<200ms	✅ On Target
receiveGroupMessage	Processing group message streams	119-127	<200ms	✅ On Target
updateGroupName	Updating group metadata	105-108	<200ms	✅ On Target
syncGroup	Syncing group state	78-89	<200ms	✅ On Target
addMembers	Adding participants to a group	238-280	<500ms	✅ On Target
removeMembers	Removing participants from a group	147-168	<300ms	✅ On Target
inboxState	Checking inbox state	36	<100ms	✅ On Target

Note: Based on data from 79 measured operations in the us-east region and production network.

Group Operations Performance by Size

Size	Create(ms)	Send(ms)	Sync(ms)	Update(ms)	Remove(ms)	Target(Create)	Status
50	990	71	61	81	140	<2,000ms	✅ On Target
100	1,599	67	66	91	182	<2,000ms	✅ On Target
150	2,956	72	85	104	183	<4,000ms	✅ On Target
200	4,598	73	103	139	211	<5,000ms	✅ On Target
250	5,983	76	120	164	234	<7,000ms	✅ On Target
300	8,707	81	321	255	309	<9,000ms	✅ On Target
350	9,826	79	132	228	368	<11,000ms	⚠️ Performance Concern
400	11,451	84	170	427	501	<15,000ms	⚠️ Performance Concern
450	-	-	-	-	-	-	❌ Severe impact

Note: Performance increases significantly beyond 350 members, which represents a hard limit on the protocol.

Networks performance

Network performance

Performance Metric	Current Performance	Target	Status
Server Call Response	78.4ms avg	<100ms	✅ On Target
TLS Handshake	83.6ms avg	<100ms	✅ On Target
Message Processing	212.5ms avg	<300ms end-to-end	✅ On Target

Note: Performance metrics based on us-east testing on dev and production network.

Regional Network Performance

Region	Server Call (ms)	TLS (ms)	~ us-east	Status
us-east	276.6	87.2	Baseline	✅ On Target
us-west	229.3	111.1	-15.6%	✅ On Target
europe	178.5	111.4	-33.2%	✅ On Target
asia	411.0	103.7	+46.5%	⚠️ Performance Concern
south-america	754.6	573.1	+160.3%	⚠️ Performance Concern

Note: Baseline is us-east region and production network.

Dev vs Production Network Performance Comparison

Region	Dev (ms)	Production (ms)	Difference	Status
us-east	294.8	276.6	-6.2%	✅ Production Better
us-west	247.1	229.3	-7.2%	✅ Production Better
europe	196.3	178.5	-9.1%	✅ Production Better
asia	439.8	411.0	-6.5%	✅ Production Better
south-america	798.2	754.6	-5.5%	✅ Production Better

Note: Production network consistently shows better network performance across all regions, with improvements ranging from 5.5% to 9.1%.

Message reliability

Message delivery testing

Test Area	Current Performance	Target	Status
Stream Delivery Rate	100% successful	99.9% minimum	✅ On Target
Poll Delivery Rate	100% successful	99.9% minimum	✅ On Target
Stream Order	100% in order	100% in order	✅ On Target
Poll Order	100% in order	100% in order	✅ On Target
Offline Recovery Rate	100% successful	100% successful	✅ On Target
Offline Recovery Order	100% in order	100% in order	✅ On Target

Note: Testing regularly in groups of 40 active members listening to one user sending 100 messages

Stream vs. Poll reliability

Retrieval Method	Reliability	Latency	Use Case	Status
Stream-based	100% delivery	Real-time	Active conversations	✅ On Target
Poll-based	100% delivery	Delayed (30s max)	Backup/recovery	✅ On Target
Hybrid approach	100% delivery	Optimized	Recommended for Agents	✅ On Target

Note: A hybrid approach using stream and poll-based verification provides the most reliable message delivery guarantee.

Success criteria summary

Metric	Current Performance	Target	Status
Core SDK Operations	All within targets	Meet defined targets	✅ On Target
Group Operations	≤300 members	≤300 members on target	✅ On Target
Network Performance	All metrics within target	Meet defined targets	✅ On Target
Message Delivery	100%	99.9% minimum	✅ On Target
Stream Message Loss	100%	99.9% minimum	✅ On Target
Poll Message Loss	100%	99.9% minimum	✅ On Target
Message Order	100%	100% in order	✅ On Target
South-america & Asia	more than 40%	<20% difference	⚠️ Performance Concern
US & Europe	less than 20% variance	<20% difference	✅ On Target
Dev vs Production	Production 4.5-16.1% better	Production ≥ Dev	✅ On Target

Disclaimers

• Ideal Network Conditions: Real-world performance may vary significantly when the network is under stress or high load.
• Node-sdk only: Metrics are based on node-sdk only operations and are not covering performance across all SDKs.
• Pre-Release Status: This assessment reflects the current development version targeting the 4.0.0 stable release. Optimizations and improvements are ongoing.

Other

Cross-SDK Testing

SDK Combination	Test Focus	Status
Node SDK ↔ Node SDK	Agent-to-Agent communication	✅ Verified
Web ↔ Node SDK	Client-to-Agent communication	✅ Verified
React Native ↔ Node SDK	Client-to-Agent communication	✅ Verified

Note: Cross-SDK was tested using the operations describe above and is not covering all edge cases.

Package Manager Test Results

Package Manager	Node 20	Node 21	Node 22	Node 23
pnpm	✅	✅	✅	✅
npm	✅	✅	✅	✅
yarn@4.6.0	✅	✅	✅	✅
yarn@1.22.19	✅	✅	✅	✅
bun	✅	✅	✅	✅

Tools & Utilities

• Repository: xmtp-qa-testing: This monorepo contains multiple tools for testing and monitoring
• Test bot: Bot for testing with multiple agents - see section
• Workflows: See our CI/CD pipeline configuration - see section
• Vitest: We use Vitest for running tests with an interactive UI - see section
• Railway: Visit our Railway project with all our services - see section
• Gm bot: Bot for testing with older version of the protocol - see section

Development

Prerequisites

• Node.js (>20.18.0)
• Yarn 4.6.0

Installation

git clone https://github.com/xmtp/xmtp-qa-testing
cd xmtp-qa-testing
yarn install

Resources

• Local: Work in local network with dev section
• Workers: Predefined workers like bob, alice, randomguy with workers
• Helpers: Utility functions in the helpers section
• Scripts: Automation scripts in the scripts section