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

chore: deprecate coverage script #864

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 4, 2024
Merged

chore: deprecate coverage script #864

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 4, 2024

Conversation

molecula451
Copy link
Member

@molecula451 molecula451 commented Jan 4, 2024

Resolves #862
This PR deprecates the coverage.sh script that resides in the contract folder, rndqnuu doesn't seem to get the actual results and also we do have forge coverage that output different results to.

So if this PR gets in it will be a deprecation in favor of forge coverage
If the PR doesn't get in the coverage.sh will still resides, altho there is a workflow that does it and the issue would be closed as not planned

coverage.sh results on latest development branch

Screenshot from 2024-01-03 21-37-53

forge coverage results on latest development branch

Screenshot from 2024-01-03 21-45-08

@molecula451 molecula451 marked this pull request as ready for review January 4, 2024 01:46
@molecula451
Copy link
Member Author

molecula451 commented Jan 4, 2024

looks like rndquu introduced an update in favor of forge coverage

0ba7e3e

@gitcoindev
Copy link
Contributor

It will be interesting to find out why the coverage value was wrong. If I am not mistaken it was detected during recent audit.

I found out that the original solution was introduced in #637 and was implemented based on the workaround in a still open foundry issue: foundry-rs/foundry#2988 (comment)

@molecula451
Copy link
Member Author

molecula451 commented Jan 4, 2024

to clarify things, the first coverage.sh (which is rndquu mentions that he gets wrong) output it's the output that you get after run it in a clean clone development branch, not the forwared repo for the audit etc.., the second too it's clean branch here dollar/development

@rndquu
Copy link
Member

rndquu commented Jan 4, 2024

looks like rndquu introduced an update in favor of forge coverage

0ba7e3e

We urgently needed a working yarn coverage with relevant results for the audit start that is why I simply updated yarn coverage to use forge coverage under the hood.

If coverage.sh is not used anywhere I think it's ok to remove it.

@gitcoindev
Copy link
Contributor

gitcoindev commented Jan 4, 2024

Indeed, GitHub actions do not use it.

@gitcoindev gitcoindev merged commit 8fa47c9 into ubiquity:development Jan 4, 2024
17 checks passed
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.

Fix yarn coverage
3 participants