[pox-4] Pool Stacking stateful property-based tests

[moodmosaic]

Description

This is an integral part of our commitment to adopting a stateful property-based testing strategy for PoX-4.

Applicable issues

• [pox-4] Stacking Stateful Tests #4548

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

The stateful property-based tests can run via npm test and also directly via

npx vitest watch tests/pox-4/pox-4.stateful-prop.test.ts --reporter=dot

Sample output

✓ wallet_4        allow-contract-caller  wallet_3               until                  179942593
✓ wallet_8        delegate-stx           amount                 33784629952454         delegated to           wallet_2               until                  1875298417
✓ wallet_4        allow-contract-caller  wallet_4               until                  none
✓ wallet_9        delegate-stx           amount                 36970141191493         delegated to           wallet_9               until                  1405718799
✓ wallet_4        allow-contract-caller  wallet_7               until                  1739629828
✓ wallet_5        stx-account            lock-amount            625000000000           unlocked-amount        99375000000000         unlocked-height        11550
✓ wallet_9        revoke-delegate-stx
✓ wallet_5        get-stacking-minimum   pox-4                  125000000000
✓ wallet_9        allow-contract-caller  wallet_4               until                  858124873
✓ wallet_2        stx-account            lock-amount            1525922319735          unlocked-amount        98474077680265         unlocked-height        12600
✓ wallet_7        allow-contract-caller  wallet_1               until                  1307633494
✓ wallet_9        stx-account            lock-amount            625000000000           unlocked-amount        99375000000000         unlocked-height        13650
✓ wallet_7        revoke-delegate-stx
✓ wallet_9        delegate-stx           amount                 11433545341619         delegated to           wallet_2               until                  1653742613
✓ wallet_2        allow-contract-caller  wallet_8               until                  1376025588
✓ wallet_5        get-stacking-minimum   pox-4                  125000000000
✓ wallet_9        get-stacking-minimum   pox-4                  125000000000
✓ wallet_2        stx-account            lock-amount            1525922319735          unlocked-amount        98474077680265         unlocked-height        12600
✓ wallet_1        allow-contract-caller  wallet_7               until                  89399923
✓ wallet_6        delegate-stx           amount                 34970137606759         delegated to           wallet_2               until                  288872382
✓ wallet_9        get-stacking-minimum   pox-4                  125000000000

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.97%. Comparing base (d0df9d1) to head (fe2777b).
Report is 61 commits behind head on next.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4550      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.36%   82.97%   -0.40%     
==========================================
  Files         470      470              
  Lines      332151   332768     +617     
  Branches      317      317              
==========================================
- Hits       276905   276100     -805     
- Misses      55238    56660    +1422     
  Partials        8        8              

see 77 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d0df9d1...fe2777b. Read the comment docs.

[friedger]

Should be against dev.

I reviewed the smaller PRs, so only quickly looked at the whole code again.

[setzeus]

Have seen the individual branches along the way, kudos to the progress, excited to get this merged in!

[hugocaillard]

Leaving a "request for change" so that it doesn't get merged while I investigate

[hugocaillard]

This could be causing the issue identified by @BowTiedRadone
I'm currently investigating

[moodmosaic]

@hugocaillard

• Can we disable the implicit/global simnet object for this test?

  it("statefully interacts with PoX-4", async () => {
    // No implicit/global `simnet` object for the scope of this test.
  });

• Or perhaps I can reference the implicit/global simnet instead of await initSimnet().

---

FWIW, in the long term I want these tests to run outside of Vitest.

[hugocaillard]

Can we disable the implicit/global simnet object for this test?

That would be doable by tweaking the setup file but I don't see a lot of advantage to do so.

Or perhaps I can reference the implicit/global simnet instead of await initSimnet().

That would make sense yes 👍 It wouldn't fix the issue though, it wouldn't have much of an impact but I still recommend it

[moodmosaic]

OK, I can reference the implicit/global simnet instead of await initSimnet().

[hugocaillard]

@moodmosaic @BowTiedRadone
In the unit test PR #4698, we moved the unit tests to an other directory called boot-contracts-unit-tests. Would you consider using a similar name for these tests? (eg: boot-contracts-property-tests?)

[moodmosaic]

Would you consider using a similar name for these tests? (eg: boot-contracts-property-tests?)

Yes. Sounds reasonable. 👍

[moodmosaic]

@hugocaillard: @BowTiedRadone is working on a branch to add the remaining solo staking scenarios (this PR adds the pool stacking ones). Perhaps we can add #4550 (comment) and #4550 (comment) there and get this merged now (unless you consider those as blockers, but I think they are not).

[hugocaillard]

Sounds good @moodmosaic and great job @BowTiedRadone. It's amazing to look at all of these tests running 🎉

[moodmosaic]

amazing to look at all of these tests running 🎉

And we just started. Stay tuned 🚀

[moodmosaic]

@hugocaillard

In the unit test PR #4698, we moved the unit tests to an other directory called boot-contracts-unit-tests. Would you consider using a similar name for these tests? (eg: boot-contracts-property-tests?)

Now that @BowTiedRadone opened #4725, we can do that (inside that PR or probably better as a separate one).

---

@hugocaillard, in #4698 the boot-contracts-unit-tests is a separate Vitest project with its own config files.

In our case, then, we are going to do the same with boot-contracts-stateful-prop-tests and have a separate Vitest project for it, or even better (in the context of stateful property testing) have it running standalone as a Node.js app.