Advanced test environment

[Artemka374]

This is PR for this issue: Supercolony-net/openbrush-contracts#136 (comment)
that was started in Supercolony-net#4

It allows testing cross-contract calls in off-chain environment

• Add support of call_flags
• Error & revert handling

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1589 (6804763) into master (858684d) will decrease coverage by 0.89%.
The diff coverage is 39.08%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1589      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   70.44%   69.56%   -0.89%     
==========================================
  Files         207      207              
  Lines        6398     6548     +150     
==========================================
+ Hits         4507     4555      +48     
- Misses       1891     1993     +102     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crates/engine/src/database.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/engine/src/exec_context.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/engine/src/types.rs	66.66% <ø> (ø)
crates/env/src/api.rs	34.78% <0.00%> (ø)
crates/env/src/backend.rs	73.52% <0.00%> (-4.60%)	⬇️
crates/env/src/engine/mod.rs	63.33% <ø> (ø)
crates/ink/codegen/src/generator/dispatch.rs	94.19% <ø> (ø)
crates/env/src/engine/off_chain/impls.rs	37.68% <20.86%> (-8.08%)	⬇️
crates/engine/src/test_api.rs	84.78% <42.85%> (-0.94%)	⬇️
crates/engine/src/ext.rs	67.24% <67.24%> (-0.74%)	⬇️
... and 8 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[HCastano]

@Artemka374 thanks for the PR, sorry for leaving it sitting around so long.

Tbh not sure when we'll have time to review this since it's a non-trivial addition

[coreggon11]

Hi @HCastano thanks for the reply. We understand that there is so much going on in ink! right now, I will just point out that this is a demanded feature and would make development (and testing especially) much easier for devs. We will keep maintaining this PR and are happy to hear some feedback when you will have time to get to this 😄

[paritytech-cicd-pr]

🦑 📈 ink! Example Contracts ‒ Changes Report 📉 🦑

⚠️ The ink! master is ahead of your branch, this might skew the comparison data below.

These are the results when building the examples/* contracts from this branch with cargo-contract 2.0.0-rc-da24337 and comparing them to ink! master:

	Δ Optimized Size	Δ Used Gas	Total Optimized Size	Total Used Gas
accumulator	-0.01 K		1.11 K
adder	-0.07 K		1.69 K
call-runtime			1.80 K
contract-terminate	-0.02 K		1.27 K	129_990
contract-transfer	-0.12 K		1.33 K	129_990
custom-environment	-0.03 K		2.54 K
custom_allocator			8.39 K
delegator	+0.44 K		6.45 K	259_980
dns	-0.16 K		8.73 K	389_970
erc1155	-0.44 K		16.78 K	779_940
erc20	-0.20 K		7.39 K	389_970
erc721	-0.23 K		11.19 K	1_039_920
flipper			1.42 K	129_990
forward-calls	-0.05 K		2.40 K	259_980
incrementer	-0.01 K		1.21 K
mapping_integration_tests	-0.25 K		3.11 K
mother	+0.13 K		10.57 K
multisig	-0.49 K		23.68 K	779_940
payment-channel	-0.04 K		5.97 K
psp22-extension	-0.08 K		6.55 K
rand-extension	-0.07 K		2.87 K
reentrancy	+3.62 K		3.62 K
set-code-hash	-0.09 K		1.52 K
subber	-0.07 K		1.72 K
trait-erc20	-0.20 K		7.82 K	389_970
trait-flipper			1.19 K	129_990
trait-incrementer			1.35 K	259_980
updated-incrementer	-0.09 K		1.53 K

Link to the run | Last update: Wed Mar 1 13:40:10 CET 2023

[cmichi]

@Artemka374 Could you clarify the following:

It allows testing cross-contract calls in off-chain environment

Is this the main intention for the PR? Because we have released ink! 4.0 in the meantime and E2E testing supports this by default.

The reason I'm asking is because the PR has 1k lines of code and there is some maintenance costs associated with it. We're thinking about what functionality to support in the off-chain testing engine and for which to require usage of the E2E testing.

[Artemka374]

@cmichi Actually, it is more like full implementation of off-chain functionality, that wasn't accessible before, but I think off-chain cross-contract calls testing is the most important part of it.

[deuszx]

I think this is superseeded by what's being enabled with #1864 .

[ascjones]

I think this is superseeded by what's being enabled with #1864 .

@xgreenx has pointed out that a strong reason to keep this would be for the ability to do step by step debugging of ink contracts.

[deuszx]

I think this is superseeded by what's being enabled with #1864 .

@xgreenx has pointed out that a strong reason to keep this would be for the ability to do step by step debugging of ink contracts.

Using off-chain environment though, right? Not the actual one on which the contract will be ran after deployment.

[ascjones]

I think this is superseeded by what's being enabled with #1864 .

@xgreenx has pointed out that a strong reason to keep this would be for the ability to do step by step debugging of ink contracts.

Using off-chain environment though, right? Not the actual one on which the contract will be ran after deployment.

Exactly

[cmichi]

Thanks for the work on this PR. It took a long while, but we now came to a decision that results in the closing of this PR. Some words on the reasoning and why it took so long:

The project moved out of Parity and with that came a period in which we didn't have funding and things were unclear. We resumed work a while ago to work on ink! v6; this is a migration away from WebAssembly and pallet-contracts to RISC-V and pallet-revive. We wrote down more context about this transition here.

While migrating to pallet-revive, we were uncertain how to handle the off-chain testing environment. We've now decided to remove it in favor of E2E tests against either a full node process or a sandboxed pallet-revive.

The reason for this decision is that the off-chain testing environment comes with a lot of maintenance costs and never fully reflected the on-chain behavior.