Test staking

[joelamouche]

What does it do?

• add a config to test staking
• add a script to test staking on 3 nodes

What important points reviewers should know?

run yarn run build-moonbeam-launch before running ts-node test-staking.ts in tools

Is there something left for follow-up PRs?

// TODO: leave_candidates
// TODO: ethan (added candidate) doesnt produce blocks => need to move blockPerRound to storage

What alternative implementations were considered?

Are there relevant PRs or issues in other repositories (Substrate, Polkadot, Frontier, Cumulus)?

What value does it bring to the blockchain users?

Checklist

• Does it require a purge of the network?
• You bumped the runtime version if there are breaking changes in the runtime ?
• Does it require changes in documentation/tutorials ?

[joelamouche]

@4meta5 this is the branch im going to use to test staking

[4meta5]

Nice, I want to work off this

[joelamouche]

@4meta5 Added some tests.
Things that don't wok as expected:

// what is min amount? 100k is not enough, unlike amount specified in https://meta5.world/stake-docs/runtime.html
// TODO: ethan (added candidate) doesnt produce blocks
// TODO: nominator revokation doesnt work

[4meta5]

@joelamouche You cannot revoke a nomination if it leaves your remaining total nominations below MinNominatorStk -- the call to revoke_nomination does that so it returns an error. It gives the index of the error in the output:

Transaction finalized at blockHash 0x9333308d9a7e391bf35f0a774d99c9a754a40e50ac6359637ae34cadec1c3349
	' {"applyExtrinsic":3}: system.ExtrinsicFailed:: [{"module":{"index":11,"error":6}},{"weight":0,"class":"Normal","paysFee":"Yes"}]

So this is why there is no change after revoke_nomination. The call did not succeed so there were no storage changes.

In this case, leave_nominators must be called. This method has no inputs so it is easier to call.

[joelamouche]

Thanks!
What do you think about those:

// what is min amount? 100k is not enough, unlike amount specified in https://meta5.world/stake-docs/runtime.html
// TODO: ethan (added candidate) doesnt produce blocks

[joelamouche]

ready for review

[4meta5]

Nice job!

[4meta5]

Did you update test-staking-spec.json since the latest changes to staking were merged into master? I think the changes will make the local binary incompatible with the test-staking-spec.json. They have different WASM blobs (frameSystem code field).

[joelamouche]

@4meta5 Good point! let me know if that's the right code

[4meta5]

I'm still getting the following error for reading SelectedCandidates storage item.

Trace: TypeError: Cannot read property 'toLowerCase' of undefined
    at test (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/test-staking.ts:63:33)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:93:5)
    at process.<anonymous> (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/node_modules/polkadot-launch/dist/src/index.js:186:17)
    at process.emit (events.js:326:22)
    at process.EventEmitter.emit (domain.js:486:12)
    at process.emit (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/node_modules/source-map-support/source-map-support.js:495:21)
    at processPromiseRejections (internal/process/promises.js:245:33)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:94:32)
Trace: TypeError: Cannot read property 'toLowerCase' of undefined
    at test (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/test-staking.ts:63:33)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:93:5)
    at process.<anonymous> (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/node_modules/polkadot-launch/dist/scripts_moonbeam/test_multi_node_transfers.js:159:17)
    at process.emit (events.js:326:22)
    at process.EventEmitter.emit (domain.js:486:12)
    at process.emit (/Users/4meta5/ong/ps/moonbeam-chain2/tools/node_modules/source-map-support/source-map-support.js:495:21)
    at processPromiseRejections (internal/process/promises.js:245:33)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:94:32)
^CSIGINT test
exit index test

Also, we should add these tests passing to the CI. The CI isn't telling us anything about these tests now so it is misleading.

[joelamouche]

Also, we should add these tests passing to the CI

That is not planned yet. What do you think @crystalin

[joelamouche]

@4meta5 can you try it again? it works for me now

[4meta5]

@joelamouche It works now for me, I think this can be merged.