Scenario test with anoncreds wallet upgrade and restart #3410
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ian Costanzo <[email protected]>
|
Looks good 👍 Happy to have this scenario tested better. |
Signed-off-by: Ian Costanzo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ian Costanzo <[email protected]>
| container = client.containers.get(container_id) | ||
| print((container.name, container.status)) | ||
| for _ in range(attempts): | ||
| if (is_healthy and healthy(container)) or unhealthy(container): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I gotta ask... "healthy" or "unhealthy" is fine??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"unhealthy" means we're shutting down the agent and we're checking that it's actually down (we let it shutdown cleanly).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks really good 👍This is what I was hoping for. Such a useful testing tool to have.
Only thing I'm not sure about is if the credentials actual revocation status is being tested after the upgrade. I remember being a bit concerned that the indexing would line up and the revocation size was identical. I can't remember exactly. There was an issue with this at one point that got fixed.
Good point, I'll add some more post-upgrade testing to confirm everything is upgraded properly (for both issuer and holder). |
|
Also a bit of refactoring ...
Alice (issuer - askar) issues 2 credentials and revokes 1 to each of 3 holders (2 askar and 1 anoncreds).
The revocation registry size is set to
5to ensure there will be afullregistry.Alice and one of the askar holders are then upgraded to anoncreds wallets.