Skip to content

chore: BlockAsLocalFile Persistence Test Plan [Phase 2] #856

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

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ata-nas
Copy link
Contributor

@ata-nas ata-nas commented Mar 14, 2025

Reviewer Notes

  • test plan with test cases for BlockAsLocalFile Persistence (BLFP)

Related Issue(s)

Closes #844

@ata-nas ata-nas added the pull request label to get past the "label required" check when no label is needed or appropriate. label Mar 14, 2025
@ata-nas ata-nas added this to the 0.7.0 milestone Mar 14, 2025
@ata-nas ata-nas self-assigned this Mar 14, 2025
@ata-nas ata-nas linked an issue Mar 14, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@ata-nas ata-nas force-pushed the 844-local-persistence-test-plan-phase-2 branch from 53ef22b to 2ee40ca Compare March 14, 2025 12:54
@ata-nas ata-nas marked this pull request as ready for review March 14, 2025 12:55
@ata-nas ata-nas requested review from a team as code owners March 14, 2025 12:55
@ata-nas ata-nas requested a review from jsync-swirlds March 18, 2025 13:30
@ata-nas ata-nas force-pushed the 844-local-persistence-test-plan-phase-2 branch from bfb3c5d to 9a24c4e Compare March 19, 2025 13:12
@ata-nas ata-nas force-pushed the 844-local-persistence-test-plan-phase-2 branch from 9a24c4e to 8c3347a Compare March 19, 2025 13:13
Copy link
Contributor

@Nana-EC Nana-EC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice suggestions.
I added a few notes

ata-nas added 2 commits March 21, 2025 10:57
Signed-off-by: Atanas Atanasov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Atanasov <[email protected]>
@ata-nas ata-nas mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2025
@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 modified the milestones: 0.7.0, 0.8.0 Mar 27, 2025
@Nana-EC Nana-EC requested a review from georgi-l95 April 1, 2025 14:05
@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 modified the milestones: 0.8.0, 0.9.0 Apr 3, 2025
@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 requested a review from Copilot April 15, 2025 19:51
Copy link

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces an end-to-end test plan for BlockAsLocalFile Persistence, outlining various test scenarios to validate block storage, movement, archival, and error handling.

  • Added a comprehensive list of test cases covering persistence paths, content verification, cleanup behavior, and archival processes.
  • Specifies expected inputs and outputs for each test scenario to ensure system correctness.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

block-node/test-specifications/local-persistence/block-as-local-file-persistence-tp.md:9

  • Missing space between 'retrieve' and Blocks. Consider updating to 'retrieve Blocks' for improved readability.
and retrieve`Blocks` from a local storage. It has several moving parts, like path resolution logic, writer tasks,

@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 removed this from the 0.9.0 milestone Apr 17, 2025
@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 added this to the 0.10.0 milestone Apr 17, 2025
@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 removed this from the 0.10.0 milestone May 20, 2025
@ata-nas
Copy link
Contributor Author

ata-nas commented Jun 10, 2025

@jsync-swirlds @Nana-EC abandoning this. This PR is severely outdated both for the test plan and for the conversations we have had here. Almost none of what we see here is relevant as we have fully refactored the application, we now have persistence plugins which work differently than before and sometimes produce different e2e results (e.g. before we had an unverified path, but we no longer have, tests related to it are no longer relevant and much more). Still, I will use this PR to get ideas for test cases and scenarios as there are very good points here that can apply to the new implementation after we modify them to fit our needs.

@ata-nas ata-nas closed this Jun 10, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #856      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     89.20%   88.70%   -0.50%     
+ Complexity      713      710       -3     
============================================
  Files           131      131              
  Lines          3047     3046       -1     
  Branches        219      219              
============================================
- Hits           2718     2702      -16     
- Misses          264      279      +15     
  Partials         65       65              

see 8 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ata-nas ata-nas deleted the 844-local-persistence-test-plan-phase-2 branch June 10, 2025 11:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pull request label to get past the "label required" check when no label is needed or appropriate.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants