Skip to content

Conversation

@rymcol
Copy link
Member

@rymcol rymcol commented Oct 3, 2025

Description

Adds load testing options for the intent bridge:

  • Burst Mode (many transactions at once)
  • Sustained Mode (known number of transactions over time at a constant rate)

Motivation and Context

Currently we can only manually test the bridge, this gives us the option to send sustained or fast load to the bridge to see how it performs

How Has This Been Tested?

This PR is for a method of testing, so it has been tested by running it manually

Types of changes (remove all unchecked types)

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist:

  • If my change requires a change to the documentation, I have updated the documentation accordingly, and in either case, have checked this box to attest to my assessment of this requirement with regard to my change.
  • If my change requires additions or updates to any deployment scripts to ensure that the protocol is functional (Makefile, Dockerfile, Forge Script, etc.), I have made these changes, and in either case, have checked this box to attest to my assessment of this requirement with regard to my change.
  • If my change requires additional test coverage, I have created those tests accordingly, and in either case, have checked this box to attest to my assessment of this requirement with regard to my change.

@rymcol rymcol self-assigned this Oct 3, 2025
@rymcol rymcol changed the title Draft: Load Testing for Intent Bridge Load Testing for Intent Bridge Oct 3, 2025
@rymcol rymcol requested a review from kss-t1 October 3, 2025 10:45
kss-t1
kss-t1 previously approved these changes Oct 7, 2025
Copy link
Member

@kss-t1 kss-t1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If that works (please test manually) , that's great. Approved.

There is a number of suggested improvements - apply these if you like.

In general it feels to me that this solution is a little overengineered. It could be much simpler, and still do its job!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants