Promote find mmr entries and find trie entries to non IKWID commands #48
Conversation
Also add prod based verification tests to ensure they work. RE: AB#10376
| "veracity", | ||
| "find-mmr-entries", | ||
| "--log-tenant", prodPublicTenant, | ||
| "--massif-start", "0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this test, But setting the range to be zero length will likely excersise the short circute do nothing path. Just take this as a minor comment, I think these tests are great. Its hard to be sure we have enough massifs to do a non zero scan that ommits the massif containing the event
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, we need to ramp up the public events :P I will revist the test when we have a later massifs in the prod public tenant.
It doesn't short circuit, it considers the first massif only (index 0) and there are two massifs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
although i agree that this test won't catch a short circuit if its introduced at a later date, so its not really a regression test for short circuiting at the 0 massif
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TestEventsV1EventStdIn tests we can find | ||
| // the correct PROD eventsv1 event trie entry match. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include the same tests we run against v2assetevents for eventsv1, namely:
// TestAssetsV2EventCorrectMassifStdIn tests we CAN find
// the correct PROD public assetsv2 event trie entry match
// if we set the range of massifs to include ONLY the massif the event is in.
// TestAssetsV2EventWrongMassifStdIn tests we CANNOT find
// the correct PROD public assetsv2 event trie entry match
// if we set the range of massifs to not include the massif the event is in.
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will add them in :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
aha yes i remember, we can't have these tests against prod, because we don't have access to a prod tenant with a large enough estate for their eventsv1 events to go over to a second massif.
It will be a gap in testing for sure until we get that, but the code uses the same code path for getting the massif as assetsv2 events, so i think its low risk, it just means future tinkerers will have to be careful about diverging that code path, and if they do hopefully we have a prod tenant estate large enough :)
Overview
Testing
RE: AB#10376