Skip to content

Conversation

@jacinta-stacks
Copy link
Contributor

@jacinta-stacks jacinta-stacks commented Nov 18, 2025

I am not yet convinced that my reasoning about my untested variants is correct. Still looking into it. Especially the AST errors. Having a hard time reasoning out when those would trigger.

Replaces #6690

Closes #6695

Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.00265% with 98 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 79.83%. Comparing base (ad4a4e2) to head (1d8eb71).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/runtime_tests.rs 82.32% 85 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/database/clarity_db.rs 90.54% 7 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/contexts.rs 96.66% 2 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/database/sqlite.rs 83.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
pox-locking/src/pox_4.rs 96.96% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6698      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    79.70%   79.83%   +0.13%     
===========================================
  Files          577      578       +1     
  Lines       357591   358341     +750     
===========================================
+ Hits        285022   286096    +1074     
+ Misses       72569    72245     -324     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
clarity-types/src/types/mod.rs 95.81% <ø> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/costs/cost_functions.rs 100.00% <ø> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/functions/assets.rs 85.43% <ø> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/variables.rs 96.15% <100.00%> (+2.82%) ⬆️
stacks-common/src/types/mod.rs 74.95% <100.00%> (+0.31%) ⬆️
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs 94.82% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/mod.rs 77.93% <ø> (ø)
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/parse_tests.rs 83.33% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
stackslib/src/clarity_vm/database/marf.rs 59.07% <ø> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/contexts.rs 92.52% <96.66%> (+0.89%) ⬆️
... and 4 more

... and 64 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ad4a4e2...1d8eb71. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Contributor

@federico-stacks federico-stacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left a small remark. I would have approved and let you decide how to handle it, but I also noticed that your commits are no longer signed. Not sure whether that’s due to your local configuration or the change Jesse made to the CI. Just flagging it so you’re aware.

Comment on lines +153 to +162

#[cfg(any(test, feature = "testing"))]
pub fn since(epoch: StacksEpochId) -> &'static [StacksEpochId] {
let idx = Self::ALL
.iter()
.position(|&e| e == epoch)
.expect("epoch not found in ALL");

&Self::ALL[idx..]
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I noticed that we started a new impl StacksEpochId block. Could make sense to merge it with the one below? Or is there a specific reason we kept them separated?

impl StacksEpochId {
#[cfg(any(test, feature = "testing"))]
pub const fn latest() -> StacksEpochId {
StacksEpochId::Epoch33
}

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.

3 participants