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

Chore(eth-implicit-account): Test eth-implicit accounts still work with stateless validation #11509

Conversation

birchmd
Copy link
Contributor

@birchmd birchmd commented Jun 6, 2024

This PR introduces a new test where eth-implicit accounts are used while stateless validation is enabled.

@birchmd birchmd requested a review from bowenwang1996 June 6, 2024 18:44
@birchmd birchmd requested a review from a team as a code owner June 6, 2024 18:44
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 6, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.77%. Comparing base (9abf20a) to head (a78ca75).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11509      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.78%   71.77%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         792      792              
  Lines      162617   162617              
  Branches   162617   162617              
==========================================
- Hits       116734   116712      -22     
- Misses      40837    40854      +17     
- Partials     5046     5051       +5     
Flag Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility 0.23% <ø> (ø)
db-migration 0.23% <ø> (ø)
genesis-check 1.35% <ø> (ø)
integration-tests 37.90% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
linux 71.29% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
linux-nightly 71.37% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos 53.29% <ø> (-1.27%) ⬇️
pytests 1.58% <ø> (ø)
sanity-checks 1.38% <ø> (ø)
unittests 66.20% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
upgradability 0.27% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@wacban wacban left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

JFYI The more modern way to implement this test would be to use the test loop but given this is ready I'm not asking you to migrate it ;)

@birchmd birchmd added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 8, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jul 8, 2024
@birchmd birchmd added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 8, 2024
Merged via the queue into near:master with commit 41f6554 Jul 8, 2024
30 checks passed
@birchmd birchmd deleted the eth-implicit-accounts-plus-stateless-validation branch July 8, 2024 18:53
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