codecov[bot]
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 71.79%. Comparing base (
e883ee2) to head (5d160f1).
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| tools/cold-store/src/cli.rs | 0.00% | 4 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #11831 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 71.79% 71.79% ======================================= Files 796 796 Lines 163336 163333 -3 Branches 163336 163333 -3 ======================================= + Hits 117270 117272 +2 + Misses 41017 41006 -11 - Partials 5049 5055 +6 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/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/11831/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_up: | | [db-migration](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/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_up: | | [genesis-check](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/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_up: | | [integration-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `37.82% <0.00%> (+0.03%)` | :arrow_up: | | [linux](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.56% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [linux-nightly](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `71.39% <0.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [macos](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `53.09% <0.00%> (-1.60%)` | :arrow_down: | | [pytests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `1.62% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [sanity-checks](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `1.42% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=near) | `66.24% <0.00%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | | [upgradability](https://app.codecov.io/gh/near/nearcore/pull/11831/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.
This is not a final fix to
split_storage.py, because there is still some nondeterminism that makes the test fail. But the changes below are needed since without them the test consistently fails.This PR fixes the following: 1) Change
init_clusterto add a flag to prevent it from initializing cold-storage for archival node, since the test initializes the cold-storage after initializing the cluster. The test checks the state of the archival node before and after it has cold-storage. 2) Update theDBKindchecks for the hot db, since the hot DB seems to be usingDBKind::Hotonly, notDBKind::Archiveanymore. 3) Replacetime.sleepcalls with waiting for a number of blocks to be more deterministic on the chain progress.