-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
Non-Deterministic Bonding Test #3559
Comments
May be addressed by #3553 -- related to minting. |
Likely the issue is that the Tendermint instance is running for a non-constant number of blocks before we query it. If you set the initial inflation, min inflation, and max inflation to zero there should be no inflation. And I don't think we can rely on query results to return the exact inflation if we don't precisely specify the number of blocks we're running for in an LCD test. |
|
- Also fix flaky test (closes: #3559). Don't test values returned by queries since there's no way to query a specific height via REST.
The dog is still barking a hell of a lot. Hence reopening. |
Looks like this was fixed. Closing |
(fa2e9b8 fixed another failure, not this one) |
The easy suspect is tokens being minted due to a delay in the timing... has anyone been able to replicate this consistently with some |
@rigelrozanski, @alessio stated the above happens even when inflation is turned off. |
Correct @alexanderbez. func TestBonding(t *testing.T) {
kb, err := keys.NewKeyBaseFromDir(InitClientHome(t, ""))
require.NoError(t, err)
addr, _ := CreateAddr(t, name1, pw, kb)
cleanup, valPubKeys, operAddrs, port := InitializeTestLCD(t, 2, []sdk.AccAddress{addr}, false) |
madness |
So this would actually make sense - this delegation that's we're querying to is the delegation created to the second validator (which does not sign in the lcd tests - hence eventually it should get slashed)... if the test takes long enough and the second validator gets slashed before this redelegation takes place then when the redegation does take place it the shares it receives will be greater than 1-to-1 (because the existing original shares of the second validator are worth less than 1 due to the slash)... Thus the mystery of where these extra shares come from makes sense... the solution is to simply query the exchange rate of the second validator and verify tokens instead of shares :) |
PRs recently targeted against
develop
, have been failing intermittently on the following test:For Admin Use
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: