Closed gastonponti closed 1 year ago
Patch coverage: 30.39
% and project coverage change: -0.02
:warning:
Comparison is base (
424ce92
) 55.24% compared to head (d4ad096
) 55.23%.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
What's the relation of this PR and https://github.com/celo-org/celo-monorepo/pull/10274? Do we need to wait until the update is merged or do we just pull the changes in our monorepo branch? If so, will that cause problems with the v10 contracts release?
Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/...
for ./consensus/istanbul/...
at commit b9a80e5fd9de1a43bc5d437f9501c3588ff88f17
coverage: 59.6% of statements in consensus/istanbul coverage: 40.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce coverage: 54.5% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest coverage: 24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica coverage: 57.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core coverage: 45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy coverage: 64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime coverage: 51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator coverage: 79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random
Description
Implementation of the CIP-61: Restore BaseFee opcode/header field.
Tested
Run test, e2e tests, and spin a testnet checking the hf switch in a heavy load
Related issues
Backwards compatibility
This is part of the Gingerbread hardfork