-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
refactor: move to automated checks #62
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
467c349
to
6ebc8d8
Compare
3578df6
to
2aa413e
Compare
return true; // Call succeeded so opcode is supported. | ||
} catch (e: unknown) { | ||
const err = e as CallError; | ||
// TODO These might be specific to the node implementation, can this be more robust? |
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.
Maybe each opcode has to have an accompanying test case that succeeds when executed?
It's extra work, but much more robust. Happy to help with that if you think it's a good idea.
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.
I agree this is a good idea. I'm just about ready to merge this branch and hope to merge it early this week, so I've created #67 to track. Definitely would appreciate your help on this!
No description provided.