refactor(blockifier): clean runnable contract class code #1745
Conversation
|
This change is |
|
Artifacts upload triggered. View details here |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1745 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 40.10% 59.44% +19.33%
===========================================
Files 26 145 +119
Lines 1895 17922 +16027
Branches 1895 17922 +16027
===========================================
+ Hits 760 10653 +9893
- Misses 1100 6561 +5461
- Partials 35 708 +673 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
noaov1
force-pushed
the
noa/change_contract_class_to_raw_in_class_info
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8253a71
to
e145ec5
Compare
noaov1
changed the base branch from
noa/change_contract_class_to_raw_in_class_info
to
main
noaov1
force-pushed
the
noa/clean_contract_class_code
branch
from
2d46dbe
to
8c20534
Compare
|
Artifacts upload triggered. View details here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @noaov1)
a discussion (no related file):
you sure the deleted blockifier public API is unused externally?
noaov1
force-pushed
the
noa/clean_contract_class_code
branch
from
8c20534
to
2870f65
Compare
|
Artifacts upload triggered. View details here |
noaov1
force-pushed
the
noa/clean_contract_class_code
branch
from
2870f65
to
425e5bb
Compare
|
Artifacts upload triggered. View details here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 2 of 4 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @dorimedini-starkware)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…
you sure the deleted blockifier public API is unused externally?
Opps
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @noaov1)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, noaov1 (Noa Oved) wrote…
Opps
I meant the two from_file functions...
also, please open a py side PR if you touch the native blockifier
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @dorimedini-starkware)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…
I meant the two from_file functions...
also, please open a py side PR if you touch the native blockifier
The two from_file are test utils which are no linger used in the repo.
I don't know if they are used but given the recent change they can be exchanged by the new from_file methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArniStarkware)
No description provided.