-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Adds simple peginv1 test #106
Adds simple peginv1 test #106
Conversation
lib/tests/2wp.js
Outdated
|
||
// Assert | ||
|
||
const expectedCountOfThisPeginUtxosInTheBridge = 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.
maybe this could be the default value for the param in ensurePeginIsRegistered
? What do you think?
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. I just wanted to express it explicitly here. I can remove it and use it like this for multiple utxos.
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.
Removed.
const expectedCountOfThisPeginUtxosInTheBridge = 1; | ||
await ensurePeginIsRegistered(rskTxHelper, btcPeginTxHash, expectedCountOfThisPeginUtxosInTheBridge); | ||
|
||
const expectedPeginProtocolVersion = '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.
Same here
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 defaults to '0', at the createExpectedPeginBtcEvent
level.
@@ -105,13 +106,54 @@ const execute = (description, getRskHost) => { | |||
|
|||
}); | |||
|
|||
it('should do a basic pegin v1 with the exact minimum value', async () => { |
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.
Not sure if it's under your radar. But we should also have some tests that add the btc refund address to the op return payload.
Nothing will change since there won't be a refund, but we should check that the peg-in still works when we add that data.
And then some tests with invalid payloads, including invalid refund address data
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.
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
No description provided.