Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wip #548

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

wip #548

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dancoombs
Copy link
Collaborator

[Closes/Fixes] #

Proposed Changes

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 10, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 136 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (cd4f1af) 53.80% compared to head (7e4d569) 53.60%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files Coverage Δ
crates/types/src/chain_spec.rs 97.50% <97.50%> (ø)
bin/tools/src/bin/load_chain_spec.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
crates/types/src/chain_spec_config.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
bin/tools/src/bin/load_chain_spec_config.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

Flag Coverage Δ
unit-tests 53.60% <36.44%> (-0.20%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
rundler binary 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
builder 50.46% <ø> (+0.11%) ⬆️
dev 0.00% <ø> (ø)
pool 58.55% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
provider 0.96% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
rpc 17.16% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
sim 83.31% <ø> (+0.23%) ⬆️
tasks ∅ <ø> (∅)
types 86.52% <67.24%> (-4.98%) ⬇️
utils 6.89% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️

Copy link
Collaborator

@dphilipson dphilipson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I love it.

bin/tools/src/bin/load_chain_spec.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
#[derive(Deserialize, Default)]
$vis struct [<Optional $struct_name>] {
/// The base chain spec to use
pub base: Option<String>,
Copy link
Collaborator

@dphilipson dphilipson Jan 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this supposed to be here? Is base different from the other fields?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah the idea was that during the optional phase you can define a base that merges all configuration from that base configuration into yours, useful for testnets to inherit the config of the mainnet. This field goes away in the actual chain spec config.

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.

2 participants