Maker Cli testing #311

mojoX911 · 2024-11-24T15:47:25Z

Fixes #205

Adds other auxiliary changes as needed.

codecov · 2024-11-24T16:23:14Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 7.14286% with 39 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.73%. Comparing base (4747c6f) to head (f4ca389).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/maker/rpc/server.rs	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️
src/maker/rpc/messages.rs	0.00%	16 Missing ⚠️
src/bin/maker-cli.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/maker/api.rs	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #311      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.26%   73.73%   -4.53%     
==========================================
  Files          32       33       +1     
  Lines        4840     4063     -777     
==========================================
- Hits         3788     2996     -792     
- Misses       1052     1067      +15

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

refactor test_framework mod.rs to expose some common functions. some other changes in maker to make things consistent.

KnowWhoami

ACK
Here are some enhancements, nits, probable bugs , I have mentioned.
I have some ideas regarding better handling our threads in dns & maker-cli -> but I need some more time on that , so will mentioned about them in next round of review.

KnowWhoami · 2024-11-28T12:56:45Z

src/bin/maker-cli.rs

            send_rpc_req(&RpcMsgReq::NewAddress)?;
        }
+        Commands::Stop => {
+            send_rpc_req(&RpcMsgReq::Stop)?;


Improvements in send_rpc_req api:

It could take the ownership of the req instead of taking its reference -> as the passed RpcMsgReq variant is not used after calling this api.

We must not hardcode the rpc_port of makerd i.e 127.0.0.1:6103 otherwise the maker-cli cannot connect to makerd in case the maker changes its rpc_port.
So IMO, create a new argument as maker_rpc_port with default set as 127.0.0.1:6103.

KnowWhoami · 2024-11-28T13:17:27Z

tests/test_framework/mod.rs

                Arc::new(
                    Maker::init(
-                        Some(temp_dir.clone()),
+                        Some(temp_dir.join(port.0.to_string()).clone()),


Cloning is not required.

Suggested change

Some(temp_dir.join(port.0.to_string()).clone()),

Some(temp_dir.join(port.0.to_string())),

Also Currently generate_blocks and send_to_address are methods of test_framework but now we have certain IT like cli-app tests which do not use TestFramework struct and thus they are not able to use these api's and have to write seperate api which are exactly same to these one.

So IMO, make these two api general purpose by modifying their function signature:

pub fn generate_blocks(&bitcoind, n: u64)

Similarly for send_to_address too.

KnowWhoami · 2024-11-28T15:56:47Z

tests/test_framework/mod.rs

 };

-fn get_random_tmp_dir() -> PathBuf {
+pub fn get_random_tmp_dir() -> PathBuf {


We don't require this api becuase:

Can directly use temp_dir().join(".coinswap") to get the temp coinswap directory.

Here , a random alphanumeric chars are appended to get a unique temp coinswap directory which is not required as the contents of temp dir is removed if it already contains some data , thus ensuring that test often start with a empty temp dir.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-05T06:59:10Z

src/bin/maker-cli.rs

    /// Gets a new address
    NewAddress,
-    // Send to an external wallet address.
+    // Send to an external address and returns the transaction hex.


cli nit:

Suggested change

// Send to an external address and returns the transaction hex.

/// Send to an external address and returns the transaction hex.

Otherwise this description will not appear while running the app.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-05T07:52:58Z

src/maker/api.rs

    /// Is setup complete
    pub is_setup_complete: AtomicBool,
+    /// Path for the data directory.
+    pub data_dir: PathBuf,


What should we do?

Approach 1:

make this data_dir field as public and then we don't require to have get_data_dir api.

Approach 2:

make it private and have get_data_dir api.

I feel, 2nd approach will be better.
what's your opinion?

I forgot why I added the getter. If not required it can be removed. If we make this private all other fields should be private too. That is the right approach. But can be done later. Not a big need.

Ok, will take care of it in future.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-10T05:05:41Z

src/maker/config.rs

            min_size: 10_000,
            socks_port: 19050,
-            directory_server_address: "directoryhiddenserviceaddress.onion:8080".to_string(),
+            directory_server_address: "127.0.0.1:8080".to_string(),


any reason for this change?

because clearnet connection won't work without setting the maker config DNS address. At least this will make default config work for local clearnet. For tor default value doesn't make sense anyway.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-10T05:16:46Z

src/maker/rpc/messages.rs

-    GetDataDirResp(String),
+    GetDataDirResp(PathBuf),


Any reason changing the type to PathBuf ?
I don't see any extra benefits on using PathBuf.

yeah doesn't matter. could be string as well. I would still like PathBuf as it tells its a path info, not any random string.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-10T05:19:19Z

src/bin/directoryd.rs

-    #[clap(long, short = 'n', default_value = "clearnet", possible_values = &["tor", "clearnet"])]
+    #[clap(long, short = 'n', default_value = "tor", possible_values = &["tor", "clearnet"])]
    network: String,
    /// Optional DNS data directory. Default value : "~/.coinswap/directory"


change default directory from ~/.coinswap/directory to ~/.coinswap/dns.
as we always create default dir as ~/.coinswap/dns.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-10T10:05:30Z

tests/maker-cli.rs

+    assert_eq!(seed_balance, "1000000 sats");
+    assert_eq!(swap_balance, "0 sats");
+    assert_eq!(fidelity_balance, "5000000 sats");


Inside the start_makerd api -> we fund the maker wallet with 0.1 BTC -> then we spent 0.05 BTC for Fidelity Bonds + 1000 sats for miner fees -> then how we can get the seed-balance equals to the amount we fund the wallet.
I guess, there is some syncing problem.

yes.. that should not happen.. worth looking into it..

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-10T10:07:06Z

src/bin/maker-cli.rs

+        // TODO: Test Coverage
        Commands::GetTorAddress => {
            send_rpc_req(&RpcMsgReq::GetTorAddress)?;
        }
+        // TODO: Test Coverage


It's been covered in maker-cli test -> can remove them.

KnowWhoami · 2024-12-19T05:24:35Z

Closing this pr as we now have #326 to extend it's work.

mojoX911 mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2024

Makercli testing #275

Closed

mojoX911 force-pushed the maker-cli branch 2 times, most recently from 70bcf0e to 4e0365f Compare December 5, 2024 11:30

Add maker-cli testing

f4ca389

refactor test_framework mod.rs to expose some common functions. some other changes in maker to make things consistent.

mojoX911 force-pushed the maker-cli branch from 4e0365f to f4ca389 Compare December 5, 2024 11:37

mojoX911 requested a review from KnowWhoami December 5, 2024 12:51

KnowWhoami mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2024

[WIP] Refactor taker-cli & remove rpc_port from TakerConfig #320

Closed

KnowWhoami suggested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

KnowWhoami mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2024

Maker Cli testing #326

Merged

KnowWhoami closed this Dec 19, 2024

	Some(temp_dir.join(port.0.to_string()).clone()),
	Some(temp_dir.join(port.0.to_string())),

	// Send to an external address and returns the transaction hex.
	/// Send to an external address and returns the transaction hex.

Maker Cli testing #311

Maker Cli testing #311

Uh oh!

Conversation

mojoX911 commented Nov 24, 2024

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 24, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

KnowWhoami left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Approach 1:

Approach 2:

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KnowWhoami commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

codecov bot commented Nov 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading