Update neofs-contract to v0.20.0 #2872
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2872 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 23.73% 23.65% -0.09%
==========================================
Files 775 774 -1
Lines 44933 44872 -61
==========================================
- Hits 10666 10613 -53
+ Misses 33416 33415 -1
+ Partials 851 844 -7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
adm-new-contract-archive
branch
3 times, most recently
from
657c5c2
to
9930ecd
Compare
|
@evgeniiz321, tests fail here and I can't get any logs. |
|
This updates contracts as well, so it's gonna be postponed till we have a proper 0.20.0. |
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
adm-new-contract-archive
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bd98176
to
9d1ed35
Compare
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
adm-new-contract-archive
branch
from
9d1ed35
to
7a192df
Compare
roman-khimov
changed the title
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
adm-new-contract-archive
branch
from
7a192df
to
13010e8
Compare
| @@ -372,11 +372,17 @@ func (c *initializeContext) readContracts(names []string) error { | |||
| func readContract(ctrPath, ctrName string) (*contractState, error) { | |||
| rawNef, err := os.ReadFile(filepath.Join(ctrPath, ctrName+"_contract.nef")) | |||
| if err != nil { | |||
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("can't read NEF file for %s contract: %w", ctrName, err) | |||
| rawNef, err = os.ReadFile(filepath.Join(ctrPath, "contract.nef")) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
go this way only if file not found? also, do you plan to drop it in the future?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@carpawell is faster, but i'll leave my comment anyway
err may be other than 404, so i'd either:
- try other file on 404 only
- try anyway, but keep both errors when it fails too
same for manifest files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I doubt it's worth the trouble, but fixed anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also, do you plan to drop it in the future?
why do we try to support both ways? how long?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because it still is a generic tool. We'll see. An issue can be created.
| @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ import ( | |||
| "fmt" | |||
|
|
|||
| "github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/pkg/vm/stackitem" | |||
| netmapcontract "github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-contract/contracts/netmap" | |||
| netmaprpc "github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-contract/rpc/netmap" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i liked previous alias more tbh
As a part of nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#384 I'd like to unify different code dealing with them. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Now updating neofs-contract dependency will automatically update contracts, see nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#384 This also updates contracts dependency to 0.20.0 adjusting the code where neccessary. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
adm-new-contract-archive
branch
from
13010e8
to
ed0048e
Compare
As a part of nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#384 I'd like to unify different code dealing with them.