E2E: Add ICA MsgSubmitTx tests (success + failure) #2021
Conversation
https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-go into cian/issue#1911-support-backwards-compatibility-tests
…terchain-accounts-sample-test
| return err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *InterchainAccountsTestSuite) TestMsgSubmitTx_SuccessfulTransfer() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ive got the fail case /unhappy case below as well, so maybe we can keep this naming but break out the unhappy case into a separate test function
There was a problem hiding this comment.
separated out into 2 tests as you suggested!
chatton
changed the title
chatton
requested review from
colin-axner,
AdityaSripal,
crodriguezvega,
seantking and
damiannolan
as code owners
| _, err = chainB.GetBalance(ctx, hostAccount, chainB.Config().Denom) | ||
| s.Require().NoError(err) | ||
|
|
||
| expected := testvalues.IBCTransferAmount + testvalues.StartingTokenAmount |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find it a little confusing that we use IBCTransferAmount in a bank send. Maybe we could add a short comment explaining we use that var in the bank send. I don't have a strong preference though
e2e/interchain_accounts_test.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // RegisterICA will attempt to register an interchain account on the counterparty chain. | ||
| func (s *InterchainAccountsTestSuite) RegisterICA(ctx context.Context, chain *cosmos.CosmosChain, user *ibctest.User, fromAddress, connectionID string) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I'd prefer RegisterInterchainAccount to be explicit.
We could refactor this function to take the MsgRegisterAccount as an arg in place of the fromAddr and connnectionID. Then we can built the message with an explicit version for both incentivized and non-incentivized channels.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good idea makes sense
e2e/interchain_accounts_test.go
Outdated
| transferMsg := &banktypes.MsgSend{ | ||
| FromAddress: hostAccount, | ||
| ToAddress: chainBAccount.Bech32Address(chainB.Config().Bech32Prefix), | ||
| Amount: sdk.NewCoins(testvalues.DefaultTransferAmount(chainB.Config().Denom)), | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // assemble submitMessage tx for intertx | ||
| submitMsg, err := intertxtypes.NewMsgSubmitTx( | ||
| transferMsg, | ||
| connectionId, | ||
| controllerAccount.Bech32Address(chainA.Config().Bech32Prefix), | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
naming nits: I think we should name vars to correspond with the msg type. I got confused with transferMsg as when I read it I think ibc transfer (ics20).
What do you think about using msgSend and msgSubmitTx, I find it reads a little easier.
|
|
||
| // setup 2 accounts: controller account on chain A, a second chain B account. | ||
| // host account will be created when the ICA is registered | ||
| controllerAccount := s.CreateUserOnChainA(ctx, testvalues.StartingTokenAmount) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wdyt about renaming controllerAccount to ownerAccount and the hostAccount as interchainAccount?
cc: @damiannolan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i personally think that this change would be more confusing -- but that's just my opinion because of the language from the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally like host/controller terminology
e2e/interchain_accounts_test.go
Outdated
| s.Require().Equal(len(channels), 2) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| t.Run("execute bank transfer over ICA through controller account", func(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| t.Run("execute bank transfer over ICA through controller account", func(t *testing.T) { | |
| t.Run("interchain account executes a bank transfer on behalf of the corresponding owner account", func(t *testing.T) { |
e2e/interchain_accounts_test.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| t.Run("execute bank transfer over ICA through controller account", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
|
|
||
| t.Run("fund host wallet", func(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| t.Run("fund host wallet", func(t *testing.T) { | |
| t.Run("fund interchain account wallet", func(t *testing.T) { |
e2e/testconfig/testconfig.go
Outdated
| @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ import ( | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| const ( | |||
|
|
|||
chatton
deleted the
cian/issue#1941-add-interchain-accounts-sample-test
branch
Description
This PR adds an E2E test which tests the happy path for in interchain accounts transaction using the
icaddocker images.Thank you @charleenfei and @damiannolan for all the help with this one 🥇
closes: #1941
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)godoccomments.Unreleasedsection inCHANGELOG.mdFiles changedin the Github PR explorerCodecov Reportin the comment section below once CI passes