-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
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
feat: enable clarity-wasm in clarity check #1355
feat: enable clarity-wasm in clarity check #1355
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1355 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 40.64% 41.19% +0.55%
===========================================
Files 86 86
Lines 31591 31625 +34
===========================================
+ Hits 12841 13029 +188
+ Misses 18750 18596 -154 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
5cbb298
to
8bf99bf
Compare
8bf99bf
to
5120592
Compare
Thanks @Acaccia for the fix on clarity-wasm 💪 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me! I didn't know of any contract code that would yield a different result for the interpreted vs wasm-compiled routes, but I timed running clarinet check
with and without --enable-clarity-wasm
, and it's a bit slower with clarity wasm enabled, so I figured it must be doing something 😅
Thanks @MicaiahReid (define-map mp {x: uint} {y: (list 20 (response (buff 21) int)) })
(map-insert mp
{x: u306845443603200851488318099 }
{y: (list
(ok 0xac50891b72b93b496d25caedc508e9f65b98727ee6)
(ok 0x53f588bdbb3495aee902cdaa863d31e2dc42b8215d)
(ok 0xccc90ca2258d144e11cd32c453599bd36d039120e6)
(ok 0x032ee22a2028f05e537ebab0eae0fa2b8fc4ba8d1d)
)}
) |
Description
clarinet check
#1349console
andcheck