Tests for arithmetic opcodes

[qbzzt]

9156 tests. The code is ~400k bytes, but it bypasses the tests by specifying it as code: rather than CREATE[2] ing it, so it works, at least on geth.

[chfast]

Why do you think generating huge tests like this is any good idea? Even GitHub refused to show it.

[chfast]

Stop using arbitrary large gas limits.

[qbzzt]

Why do you think generating huge tests like this is any good idea? Even GitHub refused to show it.

Because in this case the Filler is the compiled version. The source code is actually https://github.com/ethereum/tests/blob/bdfd202b89d8b3845fad6a3e4af91d89d4c7897a/src/Templates/EachOpcode/Arith.ts, which is less than 400 lines.

Stop using arbitrary large gas limits.

Why? It makes it easier to run tests without worrying about the gas limit, when the gas limit is not part of what we test.

[chfast]

Why? It makes it easier to run tests without worrying about the gas limit, when the gas limit is not part of what we test.

Not everyone can run a test with 80M gas limit.

[chfast]

Because in this case the Filler is the compiled version. The source code is actually https://github.com/ethereum/tests/blob/bdfd202b89d8b3845fad6a3e4af91d89d4c7897a/src/Templates/EachOpcode/Arith.ts, which is less than 400 lines.

If you need additional language to generate a filler to generate a test you better contribute it to https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests.

[qbzzt]

If you need additional language to generate a filler to generate a test you better contribute it to https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests.

How about I get started with writing docs for how to write tests for that system? It looks similar to retesteth, but there's enough difference to justify more docs.

[winsvega]

yes makes sense to look into python specs if filler design is too complex.
but also Ori, I would love to have the docs on pyspecs on how to regenerate those tests with given t8n tool, and on new forks, and how to analyze their expect section.
also pyspecs need update on generated test format as it generates incomplete accounts and the fields format is incoherent with the current one we use in tests

[qbzzt]

@winsvega: also pyspecs need update on generated test format as it generates incomplete accounts

Can you give me the name of a test where it does that and I'll try to fix it?

[winsvega]

Its fixed now

[qbzzt]

I would love to have the docs on pyspecs on how to regenerate those tests with given t8n tool, and on new forks,

I added that to ethereum/execution-spec-tests#51 - you just update the evm in the path to the new one,

[winsvega]

Thats not very convenient when I have multiple evms on the same machine

I would need to run mv commands. Would be much nicer if I could provide the path to python script

[qbzzt]

You're right. I will make a script to improve that.

…

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, 10:16 AM winsvega ***@***.***> wrote: Thats not very convinient when I have multiple evms on the same machine — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1144 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADBCGGNOA6D4UUHBIVRVJVLWVPMXXANCNFSM6AAAAAAT4DTPSU> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[winsvega]

Are you redoing this PR with pyspecs too?

[qbzzt]

Yes. I think we can close it.

…

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:44 AM winsvega ***@***.***> wrote: Are you redoing this PR with pyspecs too? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1144 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADBCGGNB45EIB2AXVXM2AQTWVURUVANCNFSM6AAAAAAT4DTPSU> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[qbzzt]