Skip to content

Add a live-Anvil E2E runner that doubles as the demo#29

Merged
0xMuang merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
feature/anvil-e2e
Jul 14, 2026
Merged

Add a live-Anvil E2E runner that doubles as the demo#29
0xMuang merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
feature/anvil-e2e

Conversation

@heijiLee

@heijiLee heijiLee commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Stacked on #28. Closes the E2E-automation gap (E2E-001) and provides the stakeholder demo vehicle.

  • script/DeployStack.s.sol: full-stack live deployment (registries, engine, router, factory, 11 elements, recipes, AMM MockPool + RFQ venues, real ERC-3643/OnchainID via the extracted test/fixtures/TREXCore.sol)
  • script/DemoScenarios.s.sol: 7-scenario narrated suite — onboarding, compliant trade, live A-02 rejection with off-chain reason-code recompute, suspend/resume, RFQ fill + unapproved-maker rejection, surveillance flag, router-bypass rejection. Any FAIL → nonzero exit
  • scripts/e2e-anvil.sh (--port, --keep for interactive demos), docs/demo.md runbook

No src/ changes; tools/deploy-v3 untouched (real v3 pool = documented follow-up). Suite 238/238; e2e verified 7/7 PASS across three fresh runs.

0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Record the RFQ backend as a TypeScript SDK and local-reference path before MVP demo backend work begins, while preserving pending PR context for RFQ hardening, E2E, CLI, and BUIDL fixtures.

Constraint: Open PRs #24, #28, #29, #30, and #35 already cover parts of RFQ hardening, protected-router scenarios, live demo, CLI, and BUIDL-like fixtures.
Rejected: Treating an RFQ backend as a Corner Store-operated production server | would blur operator responsibilities for pricing, signer custody, inventory, hosting, and compliance prechecks.
Confidence: high
Scope-risk: narrow
Directive: Implement RFQ SDK interfaces first; any MVP backend must reuse merged E2E/CLI/BUIDL paths instead of creating parallel demo infrastructure.
Tested: git diff --check
Not-tested: services/rfq implementation or runtime tests; documentation-only change
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with the router venue binding fix, Phase 1 architecture baseline, and RFQ backend SDK documentation/code.

Constraint: PR #24 must merge after #23 and before the higher stacked PRs.

Rejected: Dropping either RFQ-002 or RFQ-SDK documentation state | both are accepted completed work on main/stack.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: moderate

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #24 lands: #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30.

Tested: git diff --cached --check; scripts/check.sh

Not-tested: GitHub CI after push
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with RFQ hardening, Phase 1 architecture baseline, and RFQ SDK work.

Constraint: PR #25 must land after #24 and before the higher stacked manifest/E2E/CLI PRs.

Rejected: Keeping duplicate D008 decision numbering | would make the decision log ambiguous after merging RFQ-002 and CMP-001.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: moderate

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #25 lands: #26, #27, #28, #29, #30.

Tested: git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this conflict-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with RFQ hardening, Reg D compliance elements, Phase 1 architecture baseline, and RFQ SDK work.

Constraint: PR #26 must land after #25 and before the higher stacked RFQ integration/E2E/CLI PRs.

Rejected: Keeping duplicate D009 decision numbering | would make CMP-001 and CMP-002 ambiguous in the decision log.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: moderate

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #26 lands: #27, #28, #29, #30.

Tested: git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this conflict-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with the manifest lifecycle, Reg D compliance, RFQ hardening, and RFQ SDK work.

Constraint: PR #27 must land after #26 and before RFQ integration/E2E/CLI PRs.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: narrow

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #27 lands: #28, #29, #30.

Tested: git diff --check; git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this progress-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with legacy element gating and earlier RFQ/compliance work.

Constraint: PR #28 must land after #27 and before live-Anvil E2E and CLI PRs.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: narrow

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #28 lands: #29, #30.

Tested: git diff --check; git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this progress-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
@0xMuang 0xMuang changed the base branch from feature/rfq-integration-scenarios to main July 14, 2026 08:31
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with RFQ integration and earlier RFQ/compliance work.

Constraint: PR #29 must land after #28 and before the CLI PR.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: moderate

Directive: Continue stacked PR merges in order after #29 lands: #30.

Tested: git diff --check; git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this progress-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
@0xMuang 0xMuang merged commit 65029e5 into main Jul 14, 2026
1 check passed
0xMuang added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2026
Resolve the stacked PR branch after main advanced with live-Anvil E2E and earlier RFQ/compliance work.

Constraint: PR #30 must land after #29 as the final stacked CLI layer.

Confidence: high

Scope-risk: moderate

Directive: Reconcile BUIDL/demo and roadmap state after the remaining independent PRs merge.

Tested: git diff --check; git diff --cached --check

Not-tested: full local scripts/check.sh for this conflict-only reconciliation; rely on GitHub CI after push
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