Common: Remove calaveras ephemeral testnet

[Zachinquarantine]

The Calaveras testnet was only used for testing the London upgrade AFAIK, and since the London upgrade has come and gone, this PR removes support for Calaveras.

[ryanio]

hey @Zachinquarantine, thanks for opening! This is a good idea for some maintenance cleanup :)

Doing a search in the repo for calaveras, I found a few more places we can remove:

packages/client/README.md: L58
packages/common/README.md: L118
packages/common/src/index.ts: remove from enum Chain in L45 and case in L909

[Zachinquarantine]

Doing a search in the repo for calaveras, I found a few more places we can remove:

packages/client/README.md: L58
packages/common/README.md: L118
packages/common/src/index.ts: remove from enum Chain in L45 and case in L909

Done!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1430 (ad779b6) into master (327d2d4) will decrease coverage by 9.53%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Flag	Coverage Δ
block	86.76% <ø> (?)
blockchain	83.56% <ø> (?)
client	82.31% <ø> (?)
common	94.20% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
devp2p	82.48% <ø> (?)
ethash	86.56% <ø> (ø)
tx	88.24% <ø> (?)
vm	79.33% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[holgerd77]

@Zachinquarantine hi there, thanks for the PR! 😄

There are still some tests in Common using the Calaveras network (in chain.spec.ts), these also needs to be updated since we need the tests to pass to be able to merge here.

@ryanio Just as some general reflection point: there is a slight risk on doing these kind of clean-ups that people have actually used or have referenced these testnets in their code (for whatever reason) and we will break something for them. Just as some general thought point, I know we have removed these networks (like yolov3 e.g.) before ourselves and we can therefore also do here for Calaveras. Maybe we want to at least do some precautions here on the next ephemeral testnet addition and e.g. make clearer doc comments to advice users to not integrate these kind of networks in their production code.

Another possibility would be that we completely omit adding in the first place and solely use the new custom chain parameters instead. Not sure if this is so convenient though for us, I actually do enjoy just using --network=calaveras in the client and do not have to bother around custom chain file paths and the like.

[holgerd77]

@Zachinquarantine not sure if you stumbled upon this already, but also make sure to always run npm run lint:fix before pushing to have your code formatted properly (this otherwise also breaks CI runs). 😄

[Zachinquarantine]

but also make sure to always run npm run lint:fix before pushing to have your code formatted properly

I get:
npm ERR! Missing script: "lint:fix"
npm ERR!
npm ERR! To see a list of scripts, run:
npm ERR! npm run
What should I do?

[ryanio]

but also make sure to always run npm run lint:fix before pushing to have your code formatted properly

I get:

npm ERR! Missing script: "lint:fix"

npm ERR!

npm ERR! To see a list of scripts, run:

npm ERR! npm run

What should I do?

If on root run with --workspaces to run the cmd in all packages.

So: npm run lint:fix --workspaces

[Zachinquarantine]

but also make sure to always run npm run lint:fix before pushing to have your code formatted properly

I get:
npm ERR! Missing script: "lint:fix"
npm ERR!
npm ERR! To see a list of scripts, run:
npm ERR! npm run
What should I do?

If on root run with --workspaces to run the cmd in all packages.

So: npm run lint:fix --workspaces

I don't think I have lint installed at all, how can I install it?

[holgerd77]

@Zachinquarantine you need to one-time run npm i from the root of your monorepo to install all dependencies and dev dependencies and build all the packages (takes a couple of minutes).

[acolytec3]

This looks good! Looks like everything is cleaned up and tests are all passing. @holgerd77 I think this is technically a breaking change on common so will defer to your judgement on when/how to merge.

[holgerd77]

@acolytec3 after sleeping on this one night I am actually even more confident that we just can merge this into master and actually also continue with our current practice on adding (and removing) these testnets to Common.

People very well know that these testnets are just temporary and I guess the chance that someone is hardcoding a reference to these testnets into a production library is extremely rare.

So @Zachinquarantine thanks again for the contribution, will merge.

[holgerd77]

LGTM