Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update solidity-coverage for fork. #535

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update solidity-coverage for fork. #535

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cgewecke
Copy link
Contributor

@cgewecke cgewecke commented Nov 8, 2017

This PR is the solidity-coverage complement to #531. It uses a testrpc based on 6.0.1. Opening this just so you know it is available. It's been tested by bringing #531 into a fork and getting it to run clean there. However, this PR doesn't include any of #531's test fixes.

Probably easier to bump the version yourself when (if) ready because of all the package lock noise. Have followed the procedure outlined in #363. . .but idk.

Some notes:

  • solidity-coverage is currently trapped at pragma 0.4.17 and below.
  • view and constant work (with warnings). pure compiles but returns a transaction object rather than a value (so, not useful).

Please let me know if you run into any problems, happy to debug and get this working. Also, feel free to close.

Happy fork Zeppelin!
c

@cgewecke cgewecke changed the title Update solidity-coverage to 0.3.5 [WIP] Update solidity-coverage for fork. Nov 8, 2017
@cgewecke cgewecke changed the title [WIP] Update solidity-coverage for fork. Update solidity-coverage for fork. Nov 8, 2017
@cgewecke
Copy link
Contributor Author

cgewecke commented Nov 8, 2017

NB: This PR will need to be followed by another with more extensive changes to the tests when you move above pragma 0.4.17. We've now released a version that can accommodate the new restrictions on view and pure methods as long as they are explicitly invoked using the .call post-fix. A PR for this would touch half (maybe more) of the files in the project so might be good to co-ordinate if / when you are ready. For more info see issue 146 at solidity-coverage.

@cgewecke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing per #573 etc.

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.

1 participant