Skip to content

Conversation

@michaeldiamant
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

Removes LocalRunner.Run in favor of LocalRunner.RunAll to ensure tests follow the same debugging logic as tealdbg execution.

Test Plan

Ran tealdbg tests.

@michaeldiamant michaeldiamant changed the title Replace LocalRunner.Run with LocalRunner.RunAll tealdbg: Replace LocalRunner.Run with LocalRunner.RunAll Mar 21, 2022
@michaeldiamant michaeldiamant added test Improves testing of existing code Enhancement and removed test Improves testing of existing code labels Mar 21, 2022
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 21, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #3805 (7de6d10) into master (5a9f94a) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3805      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   49.83%   49.85%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         392      392              
  Lines       68719    68713       -6     
==========================================
+ Hits        34243    34260      +17     
+ Misses      30716    30703      -13     
+ Partials     3760     3750      -10     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cmd/tealdbg/local.go 73.86% <100.00%> (+2.87%) ⬆️
catchup/peerSelector.go 98.95% <0.00%> (-1.05%) ⬇️
network/requestTracker.go 70.25% <0.00%> (-0.87%) ⬇️
ledger/acctupdates.go 68.51% <0.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
network/wsNetwork.go 62.99% <0.00%> (+0.19%) ⬆️
network/wsPeer.go 68.33% <0.00%> (+0.27%) ⬆️
data/abi/abi_type.go 88.62% <0.00%> (+0.94%) ⬆️
crypto/merkletrie/node.go 93.48% <0.00%> (+1.86%) ⬆️
crypto/merkletrie/trie.go 68.61% <0.00%> (+2.18%) ⬆️
... and 2 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5a9f94a...7de6d10. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@algorandskiy algorandskiy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tests look good but please exclude testify upgrade from this PR

@michaeldiamant
Copy link
Contributor Author

@algorandskiy Thanks for the quick review. I've got a follow up question inline below.

please exclude testify upgrade from this PR

Can you elaborate on why you'd like the upgrade to be excluded?

  • Provided the build works (and it does), I assumed it'd be safe to apply a bug fix version upgrade of a testing library.
  • I'm trying to gauge if there's a concern I didn't spot when considering the version bump.

@algorandskiy
Copy link
Contributor

We usually do not upgrade dependencies without a strict need. I do not see a strict need here.

Copy link
Contributor

@algochoi algochoi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

edit: never mind, I was reading the wrong thing

Copy link
Contributor

@algorandskiy algorandskiy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I missed the part "testify 1.7.1 has ErrorContains" that is used in this PR. I guess LGTM then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants