-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
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
Move EOF to Osaka #1060
Move EOF to Osaka #1060
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1060 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.21% 94.22% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 158 158
Lines 17054 17054
==========================================
+ Hits 16067 16069 +2
+ Misses 987 985 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
EEST tests fixed in ethereum/execution-spec-tests#907, pointed CI to our fork of |
2418b9e
to
fb2c4ba
Compare
@@ -458,7 +454,7 @@ jobs: | |||
working_directory: ~/build | |||
command: > | |||
bin/evmone-blockchaintest | |||
--gtest_filter='-*StateTests/stEOF/*.*:*StateTests/stEIP2537.*' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is nothing left here. We should remove this step. https://github.com/ethereum/tests/tree/develop/EIPTests/StateTests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
and https://github.com/ipsilon/tests/tree/eof-osaka-20241028/EIPTests/BlockchainTests/bcExample
(note the former is skipped, but the latter passes)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ha, and third: BTW, why do we exclude 2537? they pass
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2537 is covered by EEST. I would also ignore "examples". We are migrating away from ethereum/tests so let's limit the exposure. But I can do this in a separate PR with proper comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea, separate PR seems cleaner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, with single CI comment. Are you planning to squash-merge?
Yeah, I think squash merge is ok here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Put some nice message on merge.
As title. This ended up just being a Find-Replace PR, I'm not sure if I'm missing something more profound here.
Start as draft as I'm still figuring out why we don't fill EEST (possibly problem on EEST end)EDIT: EEST tests fixed in ethereum/execution-spec-tests#907, pointed CI to our fork of
ethereum/tests
after having bumped to Osaka and removed migrated tests (ethereum/tests#1410)