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] check_balance removal under protocol feature flag #13053

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 5, 2025

Conversation

shreyan-gupta
Copy link
Contributor

check_balance was converted to a debug assert in PR #12516

Unfortunately, this was a protocol change and meant old and new nodes were not in coordination any more.

This PR puts check_ balance behind a protocol feature flag

@shreyan-gupta shreyan-gupta requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2025 17:23
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.93%. Comparing base (7dcef74) to head (23b5844).
Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #13053   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.93%   69.93%           
=======================================
  Files         859      859           
  Lines      176386   176412   +26     
  Branches   176386   176412   +26     
=======================================
+ Hits       123350   123378   +28     
- Misses      47859    47874   +15     
+ Partials     5177     5160   -17     
Flag Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility 0.36% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
db-migration 0.36% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
genesis-check 1.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
linux 69.80% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
linux-nightly 69.50% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
pytests 1.74% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
sanity-checks 1.55% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittests 69.77% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
upgradability 0.36% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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
Member

@Longarithm Longarithm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Confirmed on forknet.

@shreyan-gupta shreyan-gupta added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 5, 2025
Merged via the queue into master with commit 731a82f Mar 5, 2025
29 checks passed
@shreyan-gupta shreyan-gupta deleted the shreyan/fix/check_balance branch March 5, 2025 18:17
shreyan-gupta added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025
`check_balance` was converted to a debug assert in PR
#12516

Unfortunately, this was a protocol change and meant old and new nodes
were not in coordination any more.

This PR puts `check_ balance` behind a protocol feature flag
VanBarbascu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025
…13055)

`check_balance` was converted to a debug assert in PR
#12516

Unfortunately, this was a protocol change and meant old and new nodes
were not in coordination any more.

This PR puts `check_ balance` behind a protocol feature flag
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