fix(test-suite): fix delegated user decrypt assertion#2070
fix(test-suite): fix delegated user decrypt assertion#2070
Conversation
🧪 CI InsightsHere's what we observed from your CI run for ab6d3c1. 🟢 All jobs passed!But CI Insights is watching 👀 |
| new RegExp(USER_DECRYPTION_NOT_DELEGATED_SELECTOR), | ||
| ); | ||
| ), | ||
| ).to.be.rejectedWith('Execution reverted'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tawadaa do you know why the error changed? Maybe something has changed on the Relayer side?
In this case, I think the const declared at line 8 is not needed anymore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if it changed, but the error we observed is an Execution reverted with and error 500
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error from relayer didn't change. Relater sends only an abstracted information (labels) and a message intended for user. Revert selector is not there, since we do the ACL as boolena check (isDelegatedUserDecryptReady).
However, the message will also change in the incoming 0.12 release due to Host ACL feature.
| // Wait for 2 blocks to ensure delegation is propagated by the coprocessor. | ||
| const currentBlock = await ethers.provider.getBlockNumber(); | ||
| await waitForBlock(currentBlock + 15); | ||
| await waitForBlock(currentBlock + 2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you know why this got decremented to 2 blocks? Is the simple ACL already working maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With 15 blocks we hit the timeout for the last test, as we wait for 15 blocks twice.
Not sure for simple ACL, as this tested for v0.11.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would appreciate if we could merge #2072 first, to avoid dealing with conflicts on a big long living feature branch 😇
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simple ACL changes are not yet active on main.
The error matching would again change with simple ACL, as the check will be have a new error label for Host ACL related errors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with @eudlins-zama that we should merge the feature branch sooner.
4 participants
No description provided.