test: Add CCTP synpress config #1861
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| params: Parameters<typeof cy.confirmMetamaskPermissionToSpend>[0] | ||
| ) { | ||
| cy.confirmMetamaskPermissionToSpend(params) | ||
| cy.confirmMetamaskPermissionToSpend(params) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this being called twice? typo? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wish, but no, it's actually the reasonning behind this command
| cy.confirmSpending({ spendLimit: '1' }) | ||
| cy.wait(10_000) | ||
| cy.confirmMetamaskTransaction(undefined) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is this changed and changed to a different way from the cctp approval?
| if (!process.env.PRIVATE_KEY_CCTP) { | ||
| throw new Error('PRIVATE_KEY_CCTP variable missing.') | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is checked twice, see L42-44
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they are different keys, but the checks should be grouped together.
|
additionally, is this PR meant to break the existing CCTP tests? 
|
| sourceWallet: Wallet | ||
| amount?: BigNumber | ||
| }) { | ||
| console.log(`Funding ETH to user wallet ${address}...`) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs networkType in this function. We should add it again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would probably move the log outside then, it feels weird to pass a parameter only to log it
| sourceWallet: Wallet | ||
| networkType: NetworkType | ||
| }) { | ||
| console.log('Funding USDC to user wallet...') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs networkType in log
| cy.confirmMetamaskPermissionToSpend('1') | ||
| cy.confirmSpending('5') | ||
| cy.wait(10_000) | ||
| cy.rejectMetamaskTransaction() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we want to reject the transaction? We can assert by confirming the next metamask transaction too, right? That way we wouldn't need to wait and it'd be cleaner too!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to wait whether we reject or confirm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand the wait, but why are we rejecting the tx +1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rejecting is more likely to succeed than confirming. I don't mind accepting it though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
based on our slack discussion, this is a hack that works best among all hacky options (checking for a UI element / try to confirm on the popup again / try to reject on the popup)
can we also add a comment here for our future selves and other teammates?
| if (!process.env.PRIVATE_KEY_CCTP) { | ||
| throw new Error('PRIVATE_KEY_CCTP variable missing.') | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they are different keys, but the checks should be grouped together.
Summary
Steps to test