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

Validate answer tests and helper contract #15243

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 14, 2024

Conversation

eduard-cl
Copy link

_validateAnswer() tests + move harness exposed functions to helper contract

@eduard-cl eduard-cl requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2024 13:45
Copy link
Contributor

I see you updated files related to contracts. Please run pnpm changeset in the contracts directory to add a changeset.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2024

AER Report: Operator UI CI

aer_workflow , commit , Breaking Changes GQL Check

1. Workflow conclusion is failure:[convictional/trigger-workflow-and-wait@f69fa9e]

Source of Error:
Run convictional/trigger-workflow-and-wait@f69fa9eedd3c62a599220f4d5745230e237904be	2024-11-14T17:30:57.6134117Z Checking conclusion [failure]
Run convictional/trigger-workflow-and-wait@f69fa9eedd3c62a599220f4d5745230e237904be	2024-11-14T17:30:57.6134824Z Checking status [completed]
Run convictional/trigger-workflow-and-wait@f69fa9eedd3c62a599220f4d5745230e237904be	2024-11-14T17:30:57.6135685Z Conclusion is not success, it's [failure].
Run convictional/trigger-workflow-and-wait@f69fa9eedd3c62a599220f4d5745230e237904be	2024-11-14T17:30:57.6138215Z Propagating failure to upstream job

Why: The triggered workflow did not complete successfully. The status check returned a conclusion of "failure," which caused the upstream job to propagate this failure.

Suggested fix: Investigate the logs of the downstream workflow (ID: 11842413061) to identify the specific cause of failure. Address the root cause in the downstream workflow to ensure it completes successfully.

AER Report: CI Core ran successfully ✅

aer_workflow , commit

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2024

Static analysis results are available

Hey @eduard-cl, you can view Slither reports in the job summary here or download them as artifact here.
Please check them before merging and make sure you have addressed all issues.

@eduard-cl eduard-cl mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2024
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be named DualAggregatorHelper.t.sol?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good question, I was not sure about that because the other helper contracts don't include the t, an example is the OffRampHelper.sol

Comment on lines 169 to 171
int192[] internal answers = [int192(10), int192(11), int192(12), int192(13), int192(14), int192(15)];
uint32[] internal observationsTimestamps = [uint32(1), uint32(6), uint32(11), uint32(16), uint32(21), uint32(26)];
uint32[] internal recordedTimestamps = [uint32(5), uint32(10), uint32(15), uint32(20), uint32(25), uint32(30)];
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These state variables should be named according to the solidity style guide, s_answers, s_observationsTImestamps, s_recordedTimestamps

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do they need to be state variables?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just removed all of them and dynamically included the report values in the injectTransmissions() function

Copy link

@Oozyx Oozyx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left some comments, otherwise LGTM

@eduard-cl eduard-cl merged commit 58028f9 into feeds-project-develop Nov 14, 2024
79 of 97 checks passed
@eduard-cl eduard-cl deleted the feeds-test-validate-answer branch November 14, 2024 17:32
@cl-sonarqube-production
Copy link

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

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