-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
Upgrade nodes in CI tests #4029
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
base: staging
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
vicsn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, let's await Kai's review
| local node_index="$2" | ||
| local role="$3" # "validator" or "client" | ||
| local log_file="$4" | ||
|
|
||
| local flags=( "${common_flags[@]}" "--dev=$node_index" ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to be able to support passing in custom flags when new required flags are added in new releases CC #4033
Also, it might be easier to read if we just pass a list of flags to start_node like we do in other tests. Currently it is abstraction on top of abstraction (common flags, role, etc.). CC @kaimast what do you think?
|
Looks good to me! I pushed one more commit with some minor cleanups (83355c6). I also rebased #3902 on it. That PR has some networking changes and the tests succeed. We might still want to test it with a branch that has breaking changes to see that those are caught, or did you do that already? Also, a side note, it would be great if we could keep the number of commits in PRs to a manageable amount. This one has 14 commits, for ~700 LOC. It's not a huge deal, but it can be a pain when reading the commit logs and or when using |
|
@kaimast good idea. You want to give it another go with a toy PR which changes the gateway handshake in a breaking way? |
@meddle0x53 can you try on a toy commit which makes a breaking change to both |
|
Yeah if I update Logs like this, @vicsn |
|
|
||
| upgrade-workflow: | ||
| jobs: | ||
| - upgrade-test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that it's a bit more expensive and unlikely to be an issue for most PRs, can we make sure to only run it on merges? See for example: ProvableHQ/snarkVM@b5ddc0c
You can also move the verify-windows job in there to only run on merges
Motivation
To test upgrading snarkos versions in a network we run a special denvet test as described in #4026
Test Plan
Run the CI and the new test passes.
Documentation
The test works following the steps:
cargo install --locked --path . --features test_networkinto a separate prefix (SNARKOS_RELEASE_DIR).Added a new workflow for the new test, extracting it from the devnet tests, as it is time-taking with all the compilations and waiting on the consensus version.