virtual-staking: Add tests for validator withdrawal and rebalance #132
Conversation
|
@maurolacy Could you take a look if these are good enough tests for jail/tombstone/removal for #123? https://github.com/osmosis-labs/mesh-security/pull/132/files#diff-55aab61e430421dc3035cc9d8bcf2263cbc08138462de265da9a4b0efe4c3038R558-R622 They currently fail, but that's expected. |
uint
force-pushed
the
123-fix-validator-withdrawal
branch
from
b6b0379
to
6ed7579
Compare
uint
force-pushed
the
123-fix-validator-withdrawal
branch
from
6ed7579
to
727b2b8
Compare
|
Rebased |
maurolacy
force-pushed
the
123-fix-validator-withdrawal
branch
from
727b2b8
to
e691fb8
Compare
| contract.quick_bond(deps.as_mut(), "val1", 5); | ||
| contract | ||
| .hit_epoch(deps.as_mut()) | ||
| .assert_no_bonding() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this because max_cap by default is zero? Please add a comment / rename the test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Good catch - the max_cap = 0 should definitely be explicit.
| contract.quick_bond(deps.as_mut(), "val2", 40); | ||
| contract | ||
| .hit_epoch(deps.as_mut()) | ||
| .assert_bond(&[("val1", (1u128, &denom)), ("val2", (4u128, &denom))]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this because of rebalance, right? Better add a comment, and / or change the test name.
I would also add a test in which the max_cap is enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be a clearer test name here? bond_rebalance?
simple_bond is a test case in which there's enough bonded.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a test case that's like simple_bond, but with 2 validators.
|
@maurolacy I updated test names/comments. Hopefully it's all clear at a glance now! |
No description provided.