codecov[bot]
commented
2 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 71.73%. Comparing base (
dae8e84) to head (5ea551b). Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #11805 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 71.73% 71.73% ======================================= Files 796 796 Lines 162981 162984 +3 Branches 162981 162984 +3 ======================================= + Hits 116915 116920 +5 - Misses 41016 41018 +2 + Partials 5050 5046 -4 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/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/11805/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/11805/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/11805/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/11805/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `37.89% <100.00%> (+0.07%)` | :arrow_up: | | [linux](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.35% <100.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [linux-nightly](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.35% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [macos](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `52.96% <100.00%> (-1.60%)` | :arrow_down: | | [pytests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/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/11805/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/11805/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `66.17% <100.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [upgradability](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11805/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%> (ø)` | | 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.
Deduplicate validators that appear as the block producer in the next
NUM_NEXT_BLOCK_PRODUCERS_TO_SEND_CHUNK_ENDORSEMENTblocks.While debugging some nayduck tests, I noticed that the validators that we send endorsements appear in the computed
block_producerslist multiple times; this would lead to sending duplicate endorsement messages to the same producers.Not sure this will be a problem for non-test environments but wanted to fix it anyways. To fix it, we collect "unique" AccountIds into the Vector.