Where Testnets Fail
Developers looking to get their contracts out into the world during development and testing of their dApps need to deploy these contracts onto testnets. These testnets are instances of the blockchain that operate on the same or newer version of the chain they are replicating. They are ideal over localhost because they allow others to interact with them and enable teams to test together. Testnets are also easily accessible for beginner devs with limited experience.
Deploying to testnets is easy after updating your config file, afterward you might think you have everything necessary to test your dApp and experiment with your smart contracts. It’s good enough to showcase a working MVP during a hackathon at least. But that’s just it, it’s only good enough.
The larger and more complex your contracts become, and the more you develop, the more you come to realize the typical testnet has some shortcomings. Running complex transactions to really push your dApp to its limits is more difficult than you realized. You’ll find that you need something more, and you already know why localhost won’t quite solve your problems. Your ability to control either the testnet or the localhost is pretty limited as well.
One such issue with the testnet is the limitation you’ll find from the get-go with faucets. Faucets let you request test ether that you can use like regular ETH but it has no value and is exclusively used to interact with the testnet. You’ll find that you are limited to a small amount of test ether at any time and there’s time constraints on when you can request more. This can make things difficult and slow down testing and development if you are running complex or multiple transactions.
In a similar vein, the level of control you can exercise over a testnet is nonexistent. Impersonating other wallets to test out your dApps in specific contexts is difficult. Running complex transactions that stress the parameters of your contracts could be throttled due to network constraints.
Addressing some of these issues can be solved by using localhost, but what about getting the best of both worlds at the same time? That’s where BuildBear steps in, putting the control fully in your hands during testing and development. You have control over the faucet so there’s no limit to the amount you can use to make complex transactions. You can fork the mainnet and impersonate other wallets with ease to understand how certain users(wallets) might engage or interact with your dApp.
With the level of control that BuildBear offers developers, you can run complex or multiple transactions without running out of test ether and get immediate feedback on exactly what happened during contract interactions. Forking an EVM chain is simple and lets you and your team deploy to a private testnet using your own Explorer, Faucet, and RPC; letting you showcase the functionality of your MVP while still completely controlling the environment.
It’s this functionality that surpasses the benefits of testing on either localhost or testnets, and combines the best of both worlds. But, so far I’ve just been talking it all out and I haven’t shown it off yet. That’s why next up I’ll be showcasing how BuildBear addresses both localhost and testnet shortcomings by deploying a dApp and showcasing these benefits.
