Tests fail after recent changes in laconicd #8

New Issue

dboreham · 2022-12-01T13:07:20Z

nikugogoi commented

2022-12-01 13:07:20 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Test suite in laconic-sdk fails when running laconicd with changes in https://github.com/cerc-io/laconicd/pull/40

Error

errUnknownField "*types.Any": {TagNum: 12, WireType:"fixed32"}: tx parse error

Full failing test-suite output

Test suite in `laconic-sdk` fails when running laconicd with changes in https://github.com/cerc-io/laconicd/pull/40 Error ``` errUnknownField "*types.Any": {TagNum: 12, WireType:"fixed32"}: tx parse error ``` [Full failing test-suite output](https://gist.github.com/nikugogoi/d974190a96fbf9376601da446f06ba0b#file-laconic-sdk-failing-test-log)

dboreham commented

2022-12-02 01:34:03 +00:00

Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct?

ashwinphatak commented

2022-12-02 03:54:05 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct?

The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing.

> Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct? The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing.

dboreham commented

2022-12-02 16:52:02 +00:00

Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct?

The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing.

Should there be a bug filed in the laconicd project? (or should this bug have been filed there?)

> > Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct? > > The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing. Should there be a bug filed in the laconicd project? (or should this bug have been filed there?)

0xmuralik commented

2022-12-08 15:53:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct?

The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing.

One of the tests on laconic-sdk which is failing now is sendning funds from one account to other (get balance test). I tried to do the same on laconicd directly which worked fine.
Also in the PR #40 we upgraded to cosmos-sdk v0.46.3 from v0.46.2. Could this be the reason why laconic-sdk is failing to complete transactions?

> > Is this due to a bug in the new laconicd code, or were the tests not originally correct? > > The tests all pass prior to PR 40 landing. One of the tests on laconic-sdk which is failing now is sendning funds from one account to other ([get balance test](https://github.com/cerc-io/laconic-sdk/blob/3a890ab46cc6168cfc678121c9f0a41bfb304fa7/src/index.test.ts#L32)). I tried to do the same on laconicd directly which worked fine. Also in the PR #40 we upgraded to cosmos-sdk v0.46.3 from v0.46.2. Could this be the reason why laconic-sdk is failing to complete transactions?

0xmuralik commented

2022-12-08 15:54:33 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Just to be sure this is the error being returned for every failing test right?
signature verification failed; please verify account number (0) and chain-id (ethermint_9000-1): feePayer pubkey EthPubKeySecp256k1{0233C41D160405A0E97DB0D18B9B26F7DBD21014300CC3B92357FF663F6880ADCF} is different from transaction pubkey EthPubKeySecp256k1{021DE395EE8B253EE9921F44F3638E3D19143ED9E7CEFBCC5293384425F1B1C34E}: invalid pubkey [cerc-io/laconicd/app/ante/eip712.go:251]: unauthorized

Just to be sure this is the error being returned for every failing test right? `signature verification failed; please verify account number (0) and chain-id (ethermint_9000-1): feePayer pubkey EthPubKeySecp256k1{0233C41D160405A0E97DB0D18B9B26F7DBD21014300CC3B92357FF663F6880ADCF} is different from transaction pubkey EthPubKeySecp256k1{021DE395EE8B253EE9921F44F3638E3D19143ED9E7CEFBCC5293384425F1B1C34E}: invalid pubkey [cerc-io/laconicd/app/ante/eip712.go:251]: unauthorized`

i-norden commented

2022-12-08 15:59:53 +00:00

I don't see that error in the linked test output, just seeing a bunch of

errUnknownField "*types.Any": {TagNum: 12, WireType:"fixed32"}: tx parse error

      114 |
      115 |     if (!errorMessage) {
    > 116 |       console.error(error)
          |               ^
      117 |     }
      118 |
      119 |     return errorMessage || DEFAULT_WRITE_ERROR;

      at Function.processWriteError (src/index.ts:116:15)
      at Registry.<anonymous> (src/index.ts:539:32)
      at fulfilled (src/index.ts:5:58)

I don't see that error in the linked test output, just seeing a bunch of ``` errUnknownField "*types.Any": {TagNum: 12, WireType:"fixed32"}: tx parse error 114 | 115 | if (!errorMessage) { > 116 | console.error(error) | ^ 117 | } 118 | 119 | return errorMessage || DEFAULT_WRITE_ERROR; at Function.processWriteError (src/index.ts:116:15) at Registry.<anonymous> (src/index.ts:539:32) at fulfilled (src/index.ts:5:58) ```

i-norden commented

2022-12-08 16:01:47 +00:00

The error trace doesn't seem to suggest an issue with the code implemented in laconicd, but rather some incompatability between laconic-sdk and the new v0.46.3 version of the cosmos-sdk being used as a dependency in laconicd. But, as Murali pointed out elsewhere, the upgrade was only from v0.46.2 => v0.46.3 and really shouldn't include breaking changes.

i-norden commented

2022-12-08 16:43:46 +00:00

When I run the tests locally I see both kinds of errors

0xmuralik commented

2022-12-12 22:22:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@nikugogoi I am not able to recreate the error log mentioned in the issue. Im gettting a bunch of signature verification failed errors. Could you help me recreate this?

@nikugogoi I am not able to recreate the error log mentioned in the issue. Im gettting a bunch of `signature verification failed` errors. Could you help me recreate this?

nikugogoi commented

2022-12-13 08:08:26 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I am gettting a bunch of signature verification failed errors. Could you help me recreate this?

@0xmuralik the signature verification failed errors must be because of the mismatch in chain ID. The chain ID in laconicd and the chain ID in laconic-sdk (which can be set as COSMOS_CHAIN_ID in .env file) must be same.

Previously, the chain ID in laconicd was laconic_9000-1.

On running the test now against latest laconicd I am getting a different error
unable to resolve type URL /vulcanize.nameservice.v1beta1.MsgSetRecord: tx parse error
Full failing test-suite output

> I am gettting a bunch of `signature verification failed` errors. Could you help me recreate this? @0xmuralik the `signature verification failed` errors must be because of the mismatch in chain ID. The [chain ID in `laconicd`](https://github.com/cerc-io/laconicd/blob/main/init.sh#L4) and the [chain ID in `laconic-sdk`](https://github.com/cerc-io/laconic-sdk/blob/main/src/index.ts#L56) (which can be set as `COSMOS_CHAIN_ID` in `.env` file) must be same. Previously, the chain ID in laconicd was `laconic_9000-1`. On running the test now against latest laconicd I am getting a different error `unable to resolve type URL /vulcanize.nameservice.v1beta1.MsgSetRecord: tx parse error` [Full failing test-suite output](https://gist.github.com/nikugogoi/25b945c1c6655e91d791ad334a4a6ccb)

👍 1

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Milestone

No project

No Assignees

3 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: cerc-io/laconic-sdk#8