Two TMS on the same fabric network #476
Conversation
alexandrosfilios
force-pushed
the
mixed-chaincode-test
branch
from
7c51608
to
bb8e8a5
Compare
Integration tests for basic view operations with two chaincodes belonging to two different organizations Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> cleanup Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]> Removed flag -mod=mod Removed redundant flag for go build Signed-off-by: Alexandros Filios <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <[email protected]>
alexandrosfilios
force-pushed
the
mixed-chaincode-test
branch
from
bb8e8a5
to
0f3668e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <[email protected]>
adecaro
changed the title
.github/workflows/tests.yml
Outdated
| @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| tests: [ | |||
| dlog-fabric-t1, | |||
| dlog-fabric-t2, | |||
| mixed, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we give this a name with a bit more context?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we come back to this test later it might be unclear what is mixed here :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe dlog-fabtoken-mixed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point, will do
| dlogTms := tokenTopology.AddTMS([]*node.Node{issuer1, auditor1, alice, bob}, backendNetwork, backendChannel, DLogDriver) | ||
| dlogTms.SetNamespace(DLogNamespace) | ||
| // max token value is 100^2 - 1 = 9999 | ||
| dlogTms.SetTokenGenPublicParams("100", "2") | ||
| fabric2.SetOrgs(dlogTms, "Org1") | ||
|
|
||
| fabTokenTms := tokenTopology.AddTMS([]*node.Node{issuer2, auditor2, alice, bob}, backendNetwork, backendChannel, FabtokenDriver) | ||
| fabTokenTms.SetNamespace(FabTokenNamespace) | ||
| fabTokenTms.SetTokenGenPublicParams("9998") | ||
| fabric2.SetOrgs(fabTokenTms, "Org2") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@adecaro do you think it would make sense here to refactor this topology so we can re-use the view configuration in multiple integration tests?
I would assume that most of the views we are attaching to alice, bob, and co are the same. This would allow us to highlight better the actual configuration change in this topo, namely, adding two TMSs ... Maybe this could be handled in a separate PR. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point, indeed. Let's open a git issue and address this :)
Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <[email protected]>
|
@adecaro Thanks for addressing my comments. I suggest that you squash the commits and cleanup commit messages :) |
|
@mbrandenburger , I can squash directly when merging. No need to delay :) |
This PR introduces a new integration test that checks that two different TMS can leave in the same Fabric channel.