route_and_fill proptests #4509
Closed
route_and_fill proptests #4509
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
erwanor
reviewed
May 30, 2024
| # It is recommended to check this file in to source control so that | ||
| # everyone who runs the test benefits from these saved cases. | ||
| cc 0c03c0969eb36a1545d8a596759b19b4b297adb875bbeea04af714f1c7b132a4 # shrinks to sell_penumbra_for_gn_position = Position { state: Opened, reserves: Reserves { r1: 0, r2: 0 }, phi: TradingFunction { component: BareTradingFunction { fee: 0, p: 0, q: 0 }, pair: TradingPair { asset_1: passet1984fctenw8m2fpl8a9wzguzp7j34d7vravryuhft808nyt9fdggqxmanqm, asset_2: passet1nupu8yg2kua09ec8qxfsl60xhafp7mmpsjv9pgp50t20hm6pkygscjcqn2 } }, nonce: "9acd0464c98e0f122223613f4721c9a5feaf720e54ef2dec32c02a350e6fcb81" }, sell_gm_for_gn_position = Position { state: Opened, reserves: Reserves { r1: 0, r2: 0 }, phi: TradingFunction { component: BareTradingFunction { fee: 0, p: 0, q: 0 }, pair: TradingPair { asset_1: passet1r4kcf2m4r92jqmdks5c9yt7v2tgnht4aj3fml4qln56x72nm8qrsm9d598, asset_2: passet1nupu8yg2kua09ec8qxfsl60xhafp7mmpsjv9pgp50t20hm6pkygscjcqn2 } }, nonce: "cb352b88f8ee4076b4f6b8e59a7a2159485870743e1adbdc588cb43e9eab7a3a" }, sell_gn_for_penumbra_position = Position { state: Opened, reserves: Reserves { r1: 0, r2: 0 }, phi: TradingFunction { component: BareTradingFunction { fee: 0, p: 0, q: 0 }, pair: TradingPair { asset_1: passet1984fctenw8m2fpl8a9wzguzp7j34d7vravryuhft808nyt9fdggqxmanqm, asset_2: passet1nupu8yg2kua09ec8qxfsl60xhafp7mmpsjv9pgp50t20hm6pkygscjcqn2 } }, nonce: "81f54dd987a6a7daf96d986ef005b390dd24ff1fda6249dc5de112509a321782" }, input_amount = 0 | ||
| cc 3854e480dc5fe1428eecc71207e8ffbf2859539ef407c149b163ed19703e212b # shrinks to input_amount = 1625583888576709026, num_paths_1 = 15, num_paths_2 = 5, num_paths_3 = 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately I think the strategy created invalid positions, where p=q=0 and empty reserves too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
grr, I think I committed the wrong failing proptest, the current strategy shouldn't produce those values... 1s
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@erwanor i just pushed up a new proptest file, it had some junk in it from previous development runs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(new one fails on _pre_4283 branch, passes on this one)
zbuc
force-pushed
the
4299_route_and_fill_proptest
branch
from
b010ec2 to
426f4af
Compare
|
@erwanor I think this PR doesn't fulfill any current testing requirements. Are there any tests you can think of that would be more appropriate, or should we just close this out? |
|
Yeah I think we can close this and revisit in a few weeks. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
This adds a proptest function for exercising
route_and_fill. In particular, it checks for the issue fixed in #4283 . After backporting the proptest to the commit previous to #4283, I was able to reproduce the described issue (check out the4299_route_and_fill_proptest_pre_4283branch andcargo test --package penumbra-dex --lib -- component::router::tests::test_paths_dont_lose_moneyto reproduce) and create a failing proptest definition. I then brought this failing proptest definition over to the main branch, ran the proptests, and validated that the test now passes.It makes sense that the issue fixed in #4283 could have caused the behavior described in #4299.
This proptest introduces two checks: that value is never lost during a trace (this may happen due to rounding, and this test may actually be undesirable) and that the same position is never executed against twice for a given swap execution (is this desirable? It seems possible for there to be cases where a position could be executed against in multiple traces).
Issue ticket number and link
Closes #4299
Checklist before requesting a review
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: