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

fix: comment test_clear_old_data_too_many_heights #10664

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 27, 2024

Conversation

Longarithm
Copy link
Member

Put correct path to this test in nayduck... and comment this test for now, because it doesn't work with resharding data and MockEpochManager. cc #10634

Later, we either should remove resharding scenario or make add_block scenario respect epoch manager.

@Longarithm Longarithm requested a review from a team as a code owner February 27, 2024 08:16
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 27, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.29%. Comparing base (2963978) to head (09f2bab).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10664      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.28%   72.29%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         732      732              
  Lines      150341   150341              
  Branches   150341   150341              
==========================================
+ Hits       108674   108695      +21     
+ Misses      36736    36702      -34     
- Partials     4931     4944      +13     
Flag Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility 0.24% <ø> (ø)
db-migration 0.24% <ø> (ø)
genesis-check 1.42% <ø> (ø)
integration-tests 36.98% <ø> (+0.08%) ⬆️
linux 71.09% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
linux-nightly 71.73% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
macos 55.34% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
pytests 1.64% <ø> (ø)
sanity-checks 1.43% <ø> (ø)
unittests 68.14% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
upgradability 0.28% <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.

@shreyan-gupta
Copy link
Contributor

Later, we either should remove resharding scenario or make add_block scenario respect epoch manager.

Resharding scenario doesn't really exist here as the clear_resharding_data function only does something significant when the shard layout changes.

I think the main issue here is just MockEpochManager :(

@Longarithm
Copy link
Member Author

Oh well maybe the issue is obvious - this amazing assumption of MockEpochManager::get_epoch_and_valset called sequentially for all blocks on chain as comment above it says.
I'm not going to fix it here, anyway.

@Longarithm Longarithm added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 27, 2024
Merged via the queue into near:master with commit 3053693 Feb 27, 2024
27 of 28 checks passed
@Longarithm Longarithm deleted the rename-test branch February 27, 2024 09:35
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