add contract migration check on all calls #1547
Conversation
ianthpun
changed the base branch from
release/stable-cadence
to
feature/stable-cadence
internal/migrate/is_validated.go
Outdated
| var missingContractErr error | ||
| if !slices.Contains(foundAddresses, addr) { | ||
| builder := strings.Builder{} | ||
| builder.WriteString("some contracts do not appear to have been a part of any emulated migrations yet, please ensure that it has been staged & wait for the next emulated migration (last migration report was at ") |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feature/stable-cadence #1547 +/- ##
==========================================================
- Coverage 43.54% 42.13% -1.41%
==========================================================
Files 60 60
Lines 4304 4184 -120
==========================================================
- Hits 1874 1763 -111
- Misses 2181 2188 +7
+ Partials 249 233 -16
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
ianthpun
requested review from
sideninja,
nvdtf,
bluesign,
bjartek and
jribbink
as code owners
|
@ianthpun has this been manually tested? The screenshot shows the code error output? That seems large and unnecessary. Can we keep everything but the error output and maybe say something like "run blah command" to see the errors? |
|
Looks like @jribbink already left a similar comment as I just did so plus one. |
internal/command/command.go
Outdated
| " - Account: %s\n"+ | ||
| " - Contract: %s\n"+ | ||
| " - Error: %s\n", | ||
| contract.ContractName, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, this is a lot to show. Is it better just to say like "3 contracts with errors found since last migration," and then a way to see more?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ya i agree i think it's quite a bit. Maybe we can list the contracts and then just like to the migration data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated now
I/ll update the original PR screenshot as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does it look like if there are multiple that fail? Is there any sort of separation before they repeat?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'll update the initial PR to show that as well if anyones curious
Closes #1543
Description
confirmed working here with a manual test
For contributor use:
masterbranchFiles changedin the Github PR explorer