Closed gastonponti closed 1 year ago
Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.11
:tada:
Comparison is base (
b1bba65
) 55.19% compared to head (40bcf46
) 55.31%.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/...
for ./consensus/istanbul/...
at commit bacdccfa93b53ae8064cb7acbf444363f0ecfebe
coverage: 60.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul coverage: 43.1% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce coverage: 55.7% 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: 64.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core coverage: 50.0% 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
The RPC calls to the gasPriceMinimum and blockLimit (also ethCompatibility flag) before the gingerbreadFork (also the gasPrice for alternative currencies after the fork) require to read state from the block, but instead of reading the state from the beginning of the block, both were using the state of the end of the block This means that the gasPrice/gasLimit of the block N that the client was sending, was actually the gasPrice/gasLimit of the block N+1
Tested
Run tests/e2e
Backwards compatibility
Yes