codecov[bot]
commented
3 months ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 94.91525% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 71.73%. Comparing base (
14e143e) to head (f5fb456). Report is 3 commits behind head on master.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ...egration-tests/src/test_loop/utils/transactions.rs | 92.50% | 1 Missing and 2 partials :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #11722 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 71.74% 71.73% -0.02% ========================================== Files 791 791 Lines 161943 161965 +22 Branches 161943 161965 +22 ========================================== - Hits 116193 116192 -1 - Misses 40708 40736 +28 + Partials 5042 5037 -5 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [backward-compatibility](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `0.23% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [db-migration](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `0.23% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [genesis-check](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `1.35% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [integration-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `37.94% <94.91%> (-0.03%)` | :arrow_down: | | [linux](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.45% <0.00%> (-0.07%)` | :arrow_down: | | [linux-nightly](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.33% <94.91%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [macos](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `54.51% <0.00%> (-0.05%)` | :arrow_down: | | [pytests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `1.58% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [sanity-checks](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `1.38% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `66.13% <0.00%> (-0.06%)` | :arrow_down: | | [upgradability](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11722/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `0.28% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
This test caught the congestion control / state sync integration bug that was fixed in #11712. It currently doesn't make any checks or assertions but it does exercise the stateless validation / single shard tracking / state sync / congestion combo that we will run in production.
The first commit deletes the old test and the second commit adds it back refactored. I would recommend reviewing the full test in the second commit because the original was not fully reviewed previously. I have no clue how to make github treat those as two separate files hence the commit based workaround.