Closed palango closed 1 year ago
Test failures: |
---|
TestTransactionPoolUnderpricing: core
|
This test report was produced by the test-summary action. Made with ❤️ in Cambridge. |
Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.14%
:tada:
Comparison is base (
df29f4c
) 55.08% compared to head (4b8818f
) 55.23%.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/...
for ./consensus/istanbul/...
at commit 06290db54e1c9be30c6f2c56f8650719a6ab70f9
coverage: 57.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul coverage: 23.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce coverage: 54.3% 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: 64.8% 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
We have 2 things there 1) the zero as disabled in the core contract 2) the way we have to set the base fee for the specific block of the hardfork
For 1), I didn't wanted to change the logic of what the other team was auditing nor add some hacky ways as infinite o something similar just because of a contract limitation
For 2), the way to calculate the block N depends on the block N-1, and the activation block, is the one that instead of using the block N-1, consumes the state at the beginning of the block So, if we activate the block in the genesis, it means that the block 1 will rely on searching the baseFee on the genesis, and, I didn't wanted to avoid adding the baseFee in the genesis block If starts with 1, it's going to search for the state already set in the genesis, and will work as it should
I thought that it was not going to generate any issue, mostly because the chain construction starts at block 1, so technically, any block is constructed as gingerbread, but maybe I should have explained it better
Unit tests are passing but are flaky in github actions
Description
Fixes gingerbread activation in mycelo.
This results in this genesis config, instead of
gingerbreadBlock
not being set: