Skip to content
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

Extend broad-spectrum block tests #2568

Open
ralexstokes opened this issue Aug 25, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Extend broad-spectrum block tests #2568

ralexstokes opened this issue Aug 25, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

ralexstokes commented Aug 25, 2021

Ideas to extend the test type added in #2560

  • Attester slashings for both types of slashing conditions (right now it only duplicates the target)
  • Ensure all possible validator states are covered (refer: Broad-spectrum randomized block tests #2560 (comment))
  • Ensure coverage of random operations (e.g. random.randrange(1, spec.MAX_OP) instead of random.randrange(1, spec.MAX_OP + 1))
  • Scenario: test regular (randomized) block transition to leaking
  • Scenario: test regular (randomzied) block transition to leaking and back to recovery
  • The (current, next) sync committees are the same in all Altair tests -- have a few tests that rotate into new committees
  • Adversarial (or almost) eth1-data voting

Ideas to extend the testing infra itself

  • Use stronger typing for underlying test gen/harness (right now, just plain python data with weak typing) refer: Broad-spectrum randomized block tests #2560 (comment)
  • Mainnet altair tests take a notable amount of time. Investigate and optimize where feasible.
  • More flexible deposit testing -- right now, the format of the test doesn't allow for an eth1 data voting process to take place, which limits the type of deposit testing we can fit into the skeleton of (pre_state, [blocks], post_state) format
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants
@ralexstokes @hwwhww and others