-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
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
test(katana): messaging e2e test #1925
test(katana): messaging e2e test #1925
Conversation
-L1 -> L2 Messaging
fbb538e
to
bb51bc2
Compare
bb51bc2
to
fd99511
Compare
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.
its looking good so far, i took the liberty to apply some formatting and also moved the code to a different module.
i put some todos that should be addressed as the final part of the testing
dc482e4
to
122fa28
Compare
- Delete Manual created Anvil Runner object - Delete unnecesary libraries from Cargo.toml
0e8f966
to
22cfff7
Compare
95ef5cd
to
7f64bb8
Compare
9677b1c
to
7187343
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1925 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 68.51% 68.51%
=======================================
Files 329 329
Lines 41096 41105 +9
=======================================
+ Hits 28155 28162 +7
- Misses 12941 12943 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@@ -255,7 +256,6 @@ pub fn compute_l1_handler_tx_hash( | |||
contract_address, | |||
entry_point_selector, | |||
compute_hash_on_elements(calldata), | |||
FieldElement::ZERO, // No fee on L2 for L1 handler tx |
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.
@kariy if you could double confirm this modification. I think it was a typo since the first implem, and never reviewed it since the starknet doc was updated.
Thanks mate. 🙏
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.
i believe including the fee there is already correct, according to these clients:
deoxys:
based on this, seems like the hash is computed differently by on some checkpoints.
pathfinder:
juno:
but madara doesn't include the fee:
I would assume the official clients are the correct one, but confusingly the docs might not be updated.
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.
I've also based my comment on Madara, but actually interesting that all the others are not including it.
Will ask for a clarification, thanks for pinging this up mate.
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.
Amazing work @fabrobles92 🚀 Thank you for this contribution, and @kariy for the follow up. 🙏
Integration testing for messaging between L1 and L2 layers
Closes #1785
Closes DOJ-329