Skip to content

Conversation

@prajwolrg
Copy link
Contributor

@prajwolrg prajwolrg commented Aug 1, 2024

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature/Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality or enhances an existing one)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Refactor

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • I have commented my code where necessary.
  • I have updated the documentation if needed.
  • My changes do not introduce new warnings.
  • I have added tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
  • New and existing tests pass with my changes.

Related Issues

Closes #144
Closes #145

@prajwolrg prajwolrg requested review from delbonis and sapinb August 1, 2024 09:52
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 1, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.70552% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 53.62%. Comparing base (3f43578) to head (e99c73d).

Files Patch % Lines
crates/state/src/client_state.rs 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/consensus-logic/src/client_transition.rs 99.14% 1 Missing ⚠️
crates/consensus-logic/src/worker.rs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
crates/test-utils/src/l2.rs 96.96% 1 Missing ⚠️
sequencer/src/main.rs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #197      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   51.06%   53.62%   +2.55%     
==========================================
  Files          85       86       +1     
  Lines        7439     7596     +157     
==========================================
+ Hits         3799     4073     +274     
+ Misses       3640     3523     -117     
Files Coverage Δ
crates/primitives/src/params.rs 50.00% <ø> (+50.00%) ⬆️
crates/test-utils/src/bitcoin.rs 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
crates/test-utils/src/lib.rs 92.85% <ø> (ø)
crates/consensus-logic/src/client_transition.rs 84.09% <99.14%> (+84.09%) ⬆️
crates/consensus-logic/src/worker.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
crates/test-utils/src/l2.rs 96.96% <96.96%> (ø)
sequencer/src/main.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
crates/state/src/client_state.rs 60.00% <0.00%> (+55.16%) ⬆️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

delbonis
delbonis previously approved these changes Aug 1, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@delbonis delbonis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good so far. The math in the client transition bookkeeping is a bit roundabout but it looks correct.

@prajwolrg prajwolrg force-pushed the 144-l1block-sync-events branch from 4c1a405 to 431a5c7 Compare August 1, 2024 15:19
@prajwolrg prajwolrg marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2024 01:09
@prajwolrg prajwolrg requested a review from delbonis August 2, 2024 01:09
Copy link
Contributor

@delbonis delbonis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is good!

@delbonis delbonis merged commit 350f4df into master Aug 2, 2024
@storopoli storopoli deleted the 144-l1block-sync-events branch November 28, 2024 10:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Impl correct handling for L1DABatch sync events Impl correct handling for L1Block sync events

3 participants