test: e2ebridge_getClaims
#243
Conversation
Stefan-Ethernal
force-pushed
the
claims-test
branch
from
a01a61f to
b404069
Compare
test/bats/pp/bridge-e2e.bats
Outdated
| echo "------- bridge_getClaims API testcase --------" | ||
| run get_claims "$aggkit_node_url" "$l1_rpc_network_id" "$global_index" 10 15 | ||
| assert_success | ||
|
|
||
| local origin_network="$(echo "$output" | jq -r '.origin_network')" | ||
| local destination_network="$(echo "$output" | jq -r '.destination_network')" | ||
| assert_equal "$l1_rpc_network_id" "$origin_network" | ||
| assert_equal "$l2_rpc_network_id" "$destination_network" | ||
| echo "🚀🚀 bridge_getClaims API testcase passed" >&3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just thinking out loud and want to discuss with you:
should we, at least for now, assert both bridge_getBridges and bridge_getClaims in a single e2e test (for example the Native gas token deposit to WETH one).
Eventually, probably we can make some helper functions and assert bridges and claims in each test (if I'm not mistaken, we are going to do this anyway once we substitute the zkevm-bridge-service with the aggkit one, so no rush with this).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will move bridge_getClaims assertions to Native gas token deposit to WETH where we already have assertions for bridges
rachit77
force-pushed
the
claims-test
branch
from
7a80e0d to
6eed059
Compare
rachit77
force-pushed
the
claims-test
branch
from
4b0feb5 to
8783303
Compare
Stefan-Ethernal
force-pushed
the
claims-test
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5960387 to
584a44a
Compare
|
Co-authored-by: Stefan Negovanović <[email protected]>
Description
Added bats e2e for
bridge_getClaimsendpoint