Skip to content

test(e2e): dynamic quorum e2e tests #154

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

giuliostramondo
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

E2E tests for the dynamic quorum feature

Closes: #145
(with PR #146)

Based on PR #152

@tbruyelle
Copy link
Collaborator

tbruyelle commented Jul 3, 2025

Since #152 has been merged, can you rebase on main so we have a better diff ?

@tbruyelle tbruyelle mentioned this pull request Jul 1, 2025
3 tasks
@giuliostramondo giuliostramondo force-pushed the giuliostramondo/test/dynamic-quorum-e2e branch from 23a262b to d456ae5 Compare July 8, 2025 14:38
quorumMin := sdk.MustNewDecFromStr(quorumRange.Min)
quorumMax := sdk.MustNewDecFromStr(quorumRange.Max)
currentQuorum := sdk.MustNewDecFromStr(quorums.GetQuorum())
quorumPEma := (currentQuorum.Sub(quorumMin)).Quo(quorumMax.Sub(quorumMin))
Copy link
Collaborator

@tbruyelle tbruyelle Jul 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reading this code makes me realize that maybe the participationEMAs should be queryable. Maybe we could return the different participations in the Quorums query response ?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would use a separate, dedicated endpoint

paramsFeemarket := s.queryFeemarketParams(chainAAPIEndpoint)
oldAlpha := paramsFeemarket.Params.Alpha
paramsFeemarket.Params.Alpha = oldAlpha.Add(sdk.NewDec(1))
s.writeFeemarketParamChangeProposal(s.chainA, paramsFeemarket.Params)
Copy link
Collaborator

@tbruyelle tbruyelle Jul 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would rather use a less specific proposal for this test, it's confusing to imply the feemarket in it. We should use a simple text proposal, but there is currently no test for a text proposal submission, right ? Maybe it's time to add one.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

agreed, also this will make life easier for the renaming of the module, so we don't have leftover "feemarket" references

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.

Dynamic quorum improvements
3 participants