[Wave 9] Run CKB lock-script integration tests in CI

[truthixify]

Problem

The CKB workflow currently builds the RISC-V release artifact but does not execute transaction-level tests against the lock script.

Done when

• Add simulator or fixture transaction tests.
• Cover valid signatures, wrong arguments, malformed cells, and amount checks.
• Verify the produced lock script and code hash.
• Upload failing transaction fixtures for debugging.

[0xkhaleel]

@0xkhaleel has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

Hi! I’m interested in contributing to this issue and have enough time to work on it promptly. I’ll aim to deliver a clean and well-structured solution.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @0xkhaleel to this issue.

[6tamichael-boop]

@6tamichael-boop has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

Hello, I’ve carefully reviewed the issue description and have a clear understanding of the expected outcome. I’d be happy to take this on and work toward a clean, effective solution.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @6tamichael-boop to this issue.

[xJeffx23]

@xJeffx23 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

Hi! I’d like to take ownership of this issue.

I understand the current CKB workflow builds the RISC-V release artifact but does not yet validate the lock script at the transaction level in CI.

I’ll first review the existing CKB workflow, lock-script implementation, and current test/fixture structure to follow the project’s established patterns. I’ll then add the necessary simulator or transaction fixtures and integrate them into CI.

The test coverage will include valid signatures, incorrect arguments, malformed cells, and amount validation. I’ll also verify the generated lock script and code hash, and make sure failing transaction fixtures are uploaded as CI artifacts so failures can be investigated more easily.

Finally, I’ll run the relevant tests locally and verify that the updated workflow executes them correctly in CI without affecting the existing release build.

I’d be happy to take ownership of this issue.

Thanks!

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @xJeffx23 to this issue.

[manlikesilva]

@manlikesilva has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

Hello, I’ve reviewed the issue description and have a clear understanding of what’s required. I’d be excited to take on the task and confident in my ability to approach it effectively and deliver a solid result.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @manlikesilva to this issue.

[Eltimios]

@Eltimios has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

I'd like to work on this issue. I previously completed issue #155 (Batch-sender production-hardening pass) in this same repo, wraith-protocol/contracts, PR #175 was accepted and paid out, so I'm already familiar with this codebase's conventions, CI setup, and the maintainer's expectations.

My planned approach:

1. Review the current CKB workflow to understand how the RISC-V release artifact is built today, and identify where transaction-level testing is missing.
2. Add simulator or fixture-based transaction tests for the lock script, covering the required cases: valid signatures, wrong arguments, malformed cells, and amount checks.
3. Verify the produced lock script and code hash match expectations as part of the test suite.
4. Configure the CI workflow to upload failing transaction fixtures as artifacts, so failures are easy to debug without needing to reproduce them locally first.
5. Run the full suite locally to confirm the new tests pass and that the existing release build is unaffected before opening the PR.

Since I've already delivered a merged, paid-out PR in this repo, I understand the CI conventions and code review expectations here and can move quickly and reliably on this.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @Eltimios to this issue.

[MaryJ001]

@Maefashion has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

Hello, I'm keen to pick up this issue. I have experience with similar work and I can begin immediately

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @Maefashion to this issue.

[cold-13]

@cold-13 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 9th wave.

I would love to help resolve this. I have experience with similar issues in other projects and can put together a clean fix.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @cold-13 to this issue.

[drips-wave]

Congratulations, @Eltimios! 🎉 Your application was accepted by the repo's maintainers, and the issue is due on September 30, 2026.

🧑‍💻 @Eltimios: Please resolve the issue such that the repo's maintainers have enough time to review your contribution before the due date. You'll earn Points for completing the issue on-time, which will make you eligible for a share of the Stellar Wave Program's reward pool.

Warning

When opening a PR, please link it to this issue to ensure it gets tracked accurately. Points are awarded when this issue is marked as completed by the maintainer.

🤠 Repo maintainers: Please keep an eye on the contributor's progress and review their work before the due date. You can manage this issue, including adjusting its complexity and points, here.

🌊 Happy Wave 🌊