feat: add integration test blog post #80
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
differs slightly from the version in google docs. details the MASEs more and changes the layout to be more horizontal (looks better in the blog i think)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
slightly different from the original version in google docs. just condenses the OS and Hostfile entity into one thing - it was kinda superfluous how it was I think.
| On test start, we create MASEs for `cloud-nine-wallet` and `happy-life-bank` and seed their respective Rafiki instances. Then these are designated as `sendingASE` and `receivingASE` in our test actions and we run our test flows with several variations. These include: | ||
|
|
||
| **Open Payments:** | ||
|
|
||
| - With Continuation via Polling | ||
| - With Continuation via Finish method | ||
| - Without Quote step | ||
|
|
||
| **Peer-to-Peer:** | ||
|
|
||
| - Single currency | ||
| - Cross currency | ||
|
|
||
| #### URL Handling |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I plan on adding a bit more here - just stating how it was added to our github action and saying how this constitutes a much more complete/consistent test of our changes. just wrapping it up similarly to how i will in the conclusion basically. As I read through I realized I never really mentioned adding it to CI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is that still coming?
I wonder if we should have a short explanation of the Open Payments cases. The peer-to-peer ones could have some explanation too, but it's a bit more self explanatory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated with how it was added to CI and an explanation for both open payments and p2p.
I kept the description fairly brief and refered to our open payments docs for more details on the flow in general and the grant aspect. I wanted to avoid opening a can of worms that would not be easy to resolve here ("whats an incoming payment", "why create resources in that order", "what are the grants about?" etc.). I think the links take care of it though and its a good segue into the documentation.
I characterized the OP flow as something that would be use in an ecommerce context... wanted to make it more relatable but not sure if that is too suggestive (could be web mon, maybe card payment, etc.).
| layout: ../../layouts/BlogLayout.astro | ||
| title: "Leveling Up Rafiki Testing: Shifting from Manual to Automated" | ||
| description: "How we automated our manual payment flow tests." | ||
| date: 2024-08-27 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you update this to be next week Tuesday?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well that Tuesday has come and gone... I changed to 9/10 but not sure what the planned date is now... can revise to whatever we need.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed to 2024-09-06
|
|
||
| import LargeImg from "/src/components/pages/LargeImg.astro"; | ||
|
|
||
| Rafiki is open source software that allows an [Account Servicing Entity](https://rafiki.dev/concepts/account-servicing-entity/) to enable Interledger functionality on its users’ accounts, so testing is really important to us. Given the critical nature of handling payments, it's essential that our tests not only validate correctness but also build confidence for our integrators. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to link to Rafiki GitHub or docs maybe?
Maybe the docs? Since we reference so many Rafiki things (obviously) like MASE and local playground. Might be good to have a link at the start to guide people to one place where they can read more about all of these things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah I think docs landing page makes sense.... there is a link to the gh repo there too. added.
|
Can you also swap out the architecture diagram for this one? |
Swapped |
Changes
Context
fixes #68
It was previously reviewed for content in google docs.