-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 919
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(nodebuilder/da): implement go-da v0.6.1 changes #3750
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
269c6e8
to
9332823
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3750 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 44.83% 45.53% +0.70%
==========================================
Files 265 281 +16
Lines 14620 16090 +1470
==========================================
+ Hits 6555 7327 +772
- Misses 7313 7924 +611
- Partials 752 839 +87 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
c835b77
to
616465f
Compare
This change ensures that if the options byte slice is empty, the parseOptions function returns an empty slice of ConfigOption without proceeding to unmarshal. This prevents potential errors and enhances the function's robustness.
…st loop The reassignment of 'tt' within the loop is unnecessary and redundant. This cleanup simplifies the code and reduces potential confusion during code reviews.
Unskip DA tests in `da_test.go` and correct parameter usage in test functions to ensure accurate comparisons. This allows the full test suite to run and verifies the integrity of the Data Availability logic.
Introduced tests for the SubmitWithOptions method to ensure correct behavior with valid and invalid input. These tests validate the API's handling of well-formed requests and error scenarios, improving the robustness of the DA client.
616465f
to
8a4573d
Compare
@@ -105,11 +104,13 @@ func TestDaModule(t *testing.T) { | |||
{ | |||
name: "GetIDs", | |||
doFn: func(t *testing.T) { | |||
t.Skip() |
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'm curious why it was skipped before. Anyone knows?
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.
IIRC order of returned IDs was non-deterministic in the past.
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.
SGTM
Resolves #3743