test(batcher): block builder transaction failed test #2171
Conversation
|
This change is |
|
Warning This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## yael/refactor_block_builder_test #2171 +/- ##
===================================================================
+ Coverage 5.26% 5.27% +0.01%
===================================================================
Files 145 145
Lines 17070 17070
Branches 17070 17070
===================================================================
+ Hits 898 901 +3
+ Misses 16096 16092 -4
- Partials 76 77 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚨 Try these New Features:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alonh5)
crates/starknet_batcher/src/block_builder_test.rs line 207 at r1 (raw file):
} fn transaction_failed_test_expectations(
I can add this test as a case to the previous test, with a bit of refactor.
wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alonh5)
crates/starknet_batcher/src/block_builder_test.rs line 207 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, Yael-Starkware (YaelD) wrote…
I can add this test as a case to the previous test, with a bit of refactor.
wdyt?
(this comment was supposed to be written over the test function and not here ).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Yael-Starkware)
crates/starknet_batcher/src/block_builder_test.rs line 207 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, Yael-Starkware (YaelD) wrote…
(this comment was supposed to be written over the test function and not here ).
If it's not to big of a refactor and you think it makes sense, then yeah.
Yael-Starkware
force-pushed
the
11-19-test_batcher_block_builder_transaction_failed_test
branch
from
1374f3d
to
cb7e26e
Compare
Yael-Starkware
force-pushed
the
11-18-fix_batcher_treat_deadline_as_error_in_the_validate_flow
branch
from
d3224ef
to
fa0b49a
Compare
Yael-Starkware
changed the base branch from
11-18-fix_batcher_treat_deadline_as_error_in_the_validate_flow
to
graphite-base/2171
Yael-Starkware
force-pushed
the
11-19-test_batcher_block_builder_transaction_failed_test
branch
from
cb7e26e
to
11bdf96
Compare
Yael-Starkware
force-pushed
the
graphite-base/2171
branch
from
fa0b49a
to
495aefc
Compare
Yael-Starkware
changed the base branch from
graphite-base/2171
to
yael/refactor_block_builder_test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alonh5)
crates/starknet_batcher/src/block_builder_test.rs line 207 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, alonh5 (Alon Haramati) wrote…
If it's not to big of a refactor and you think it makes sense, then yeah.
ack
No description provided.