Fix catchup registration startup e2e

Adamantios commented 6 months ago

Proposed changes

We cannot know which height each agent will sync at, therefore, the block's number has to be removed from the check.

Fixes

n/a

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? (A breaking change is a fix or feature that would cause existing functionality and APIs to not work as expected.) Put an x in the box that applies

[x] Non-breaking fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
[ ] Breaking fix (breaking change which fixes an issue)
[ ] Non-breaking feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Breaking feature (breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Refactor (non-breaking change which changes implementation)
[ ] Messy (mixture of the above - requires explanation!)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.

[x] I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
[x] I am making a pull request against the main branch (left side). Also you should start your branch off our main.
[x] Lint and unit tests pass locally with my changes
[x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
[x] I have locally run services that could be impacted and they do not present failures derived from my changes
[x] Public-facing documentation has been updated with the changes affected by this PR. Even if the provided contents are not in their final form, all significant information must be included.
[x] Any backwards-incompatible/breaking change has been clearly documented in the upgrading document.

Further comments

n/a

codecov[bot] commented 6 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (5ada936) 94.27% compared to head (c4ea915) 94.27%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #2170 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 94.27% 94.27% ======================================= Files 260 260 Lines 16052 16052 ======================================= Hits 15133 15133 Misses 919 919 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/valory-xyz/open-autonomy/pull/2170/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=valory-xyz) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/valory-xyz/open-autonomy/pull/2170/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=valory-xyz) | `94.27% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=valory-xyz#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Adamantios commented 6 months ago

@angrybayblade there is an unrelated CI error:

https://github.com/valory-xyz/open-autonomy/actions/runs/7990330237/job/21824159764?pr=2170#step:6:14849

valory-xyz / open-autonomy