Skip to content

Conversation

@gfournierPro
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@gfournierPro gfournierPro requested a review from a team December 2, 2024 12:37
@gfournierPro gfournierPro self-assigned this Dec 2, 2024
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.67%. Comparing base (45da3e4) to head (faf2ef9).
Report is 10 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #164   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    84.67%   84.67%           
========================================
  Files           35       35           
  Lines         1083     1083           
  Branches       221      221           
========================================
  Hits           917      917           
  Misses         166      166           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@gfournierPro gfournierPro requested review from a team and zguesmi December 9, 2024 14:54
],
2: [
{ worker: worker1, useEnclave: false, result: 'iExec BOT 2' },
{ worker: worker3, useEnclave: false, result: '<timeout reached>' },
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
{ worker: worker3, useEnclave: false, result: '<timeout reached>' },
{ worker: worker3, useEnclave: false, result: '<reveal timeout reached>' },

?
To make it more precise.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually it's not releated to a reveal timeout. Since it's a bad contribution when the trust contribution is reached the reveal of bad result would failed

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not <bad contribution> then?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perfect, makes sense

Comment on lines 126 to 129
const workerRewardPerTask = await iexecWrapper.computeWorkerRewardPerTask(
dealId,
PocoMode.CLASSIC,
);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
const workerRewardPerTask = await iexecWrapper.computeWorkerRewardPerTask(
dealId,
PocoMode.CLASSIC,
);
const workersRewardPerTask = await iexecWrapper.computeWorkersRewardPerTask(
dealId,
PocoMode.CLASSIC,
);

We probably need to rename it in other files.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will rename it in the next PR that will concern the 000 fullchain test file thanks

);
}
});
async function getInitialFrozens(accounts: SignerWithAddress[]) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This function can be extracted in a common file.

@gfournierPro gfournierPro merged commit 6d63a4d into develop Dec 10, 2024
5 checks passed
@gfournierPro gfournierPro deleted the feature/migrate-200-IT branch December 10, 2024 09:42
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.

4 participants