-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(e2e): add latency report to withdrawal performance tests #3071
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the 📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
e2e/utils/zetacore.go (1)
Line range hint
1-300
: Consider implementing metrics collection for performance analysis.Given that this code is part of performance testing utilities and the PR aims to add latency reporting, consider adding instrumentation to track:
- Time spent waiting for transactions
- Distribution of retry attempts
- Success/failure rates
This would provide valuable insights for performance optimization and help identify bottlenecks.
go.mod (1)
Line range hint
375-380
: Consider documenting the rationale for replace directives.The replace directives for core dependencies like
gogo/protobuf
andconfio/ics23/go
are using specific versions. Consider adding comments explaining why these specific versions are required to help future maintainers.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
go.sum
is excluded by!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
e2e/e2etests/test_stress_eth_withdraw.go
(3 hunks)e2e/utils/zetacore.go
(3 hunks)go.mod
(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
e2e/e2etests/test_stress_eth_withdraw.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go
: Review the Go code, point out issues relative to principles of clean code, expressiveness, and performance.
e2e/utils/zetacore.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go
: Review the Go code, point out issues relative to principles of clean code, expressiveness, and performance.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
go.mod (2)
343-343
: LGTM: Stats package addition aligns with PR objectives.
The addition of github.com/montanaflynn/stats v0.7.1
is appropriate for implementing the latency reporting feature, as it provides the necessary statistical functions for calculating metrics like mean, standard deviation, and percentiles.
Line range hint 391-396
: Verify the impact of ZetaChain fork updates.
The replace directives point to ZetaChain-maintained forks with specific commits. While this is a valid approach, it's important to ensure these updates don't introduce breaking changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting
Description
Add basic latency report to e2e stdout output:
Also increase the cctx polling interval to improve stats accuracy
Related to https://github.com/zeta-chain/infrastructure/issues/1765
Future TODO:
How Has This Been Tested?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores