Closed molecula451 closed 6 months ago
looks like rndquu introduced an update in favor of forge coverage
https://github.com/ubiquity/ubiquity-dollar/commit/0ba7e3e1b08bdd57f5eafdd7d10329b9329ed94f
It will be interesting to find out why the coverage value was wrong. If I am not mistaken it was detected during recent audit.
I found out that the original solution was introduced in https://github.com/ubiquity/ubiquity-dollar/pull/637 and was implemented based on the workaround in a still open foundry issue: https://github.com/foundry-rs/foundry/issues/2988#issuecomment-1298602707
to clarify things, the first coverage.sh (which is rndquu mentions that he gets wrong) output it's the output that you get after run it in a clean clone development branch, not the forwared repo for the audit etc.., the second too it's clean branch here dollar/development
looks like rndquu introduced an update in favor of forge coverage
We urgently needed a working yarn coverage
with relevant results for the audit start that is why I simply updated yarn coverage
to use forge coverage
under the hood.
If coverage.sh
is not used anywhere I think it's ok to remove it.
Indeed, GitHub actions do not use it.
Resolves #862 This PR deprecates the coverage.sh script that resides in the contract folder, rndqnuu doesn't seem to get the actual results and also we do have forge coverage that output different results to.
So if this PR gets in it will be a deprecation in favor of forge coverage If the PR doesn't get in the coverage.sh will still resides, altho there is a workflow that does it and the issue would be closed as not planned
coverage.sh results on latest development branch
forge coverage results on latest development branch