Add SOROBAN_TEST_EXTRA_PROTOCOL for side-by-side testing #4439
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
graydon
force-pushed
the
soroban-test-extra-protocol
branch
from
7a42699
to
dc8a768
Compare
dmkozh
approved these changes
Sep 18, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This implements an idea @MonsieurNicolas proposed recently: now that we have fairly easy "by version number" selection among different soroban hosts, we can run any given transaction twice during offline replay to see (a) whether it produces the same side effects and (b) whether it performs the same or different.
It works during any tx application -- offilne catchup or online execution -- you just set
SOROBAN_TEST_EXTRA_PROTOCOL=22(say) and while replaying a p21 tx it'll also execute it on p22 and report a summary of both txs side by side. You may also need to setSOROBAN_TEST_CPU_BUDGET_FACTOR=2or so to give a bit more budget wiggle room to txs that might have higher execution costs.