Skip to content
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

Deploy StakingProxy, LockedTokens and StakingCollection #997

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 22, 2021

Conversation

danuio
Copy link
Contributor

@danuio danuio commented Jul 20, 2021

Resolves https://github.com/dapperlabs/flow-go/issues/5682.

  • Deploy StakingProxy contract
  • Deploy LockedTokens contract
  • Deploy StakingCollection contract

@danuio danuio requested review from jordanschalm and kc1116 and removed request for ramtinms and janezpodhostnik July 20, 2021 15:30
@danuio danuio mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2021
Copy link
Member

@jordanschalm jordanschalm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice - I think we can remove the keys on the locked token account, otherwise LGTM 🎸

fvm/bootstrap.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
fvm/bootstrap.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
danuio and others added 3 commits July 20, 2021 21:59
Co-authored-by: Jordan Schalm <jordan@dapperlabs.com>
…m:onflow/flow-go into danu/5683/test-env-machine-account-script
@danuio danuio requested a review from jordanschalm July 22, 2021 10:35
@danuio danuio requested a review from m4ksio as a code owner July 22, 2021 10:37
@danuio danuio removed the request for review from m4ksio July 22, 2021 10:38
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #997 (4b66e06) into feature/epochs (340c180) will decrease coverage by 2.28%.
The diff coverage is 61.91%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##           feature/epochs     #997      +/-   ##
==================================================
- Coverage           56.39%   54.11%   -2.29%     
==================================================
  Files                 451      309     -142     
  Lines               26801    21064    -5737     
==================================================
- Hits                15115    11399    -3716     
+ Misses               9618     8120    -1498     
+ Partials             2068     1545     -523     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 54.11% <61.91%> (-2.29%) ⬇️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cmd/bootstrap/cmd/block.go 44.11% <0.00%> (+44.11%) ⬆️
cmd/bootstrap/cmd/keys.go 52.72% <0.00%> (ø)
cmd/bootstrap/run/key_generation.go 44.44% <0.00%> (-1.71%) ⬇️
engine/access/ingestion/engine.go 48.30% <0.00%> (-1.05%) ⬇️
engine/collection/proposal/engine.go 48.85% <0.00%> (-0.96%) ⬇️
engine/common/follower/engine.go 54.26% <0.00%> (-1.71%) ⬇️
engine/common/provider/engine.go 30.66% <0.00%> (-2.20%) ⬇️
engine/common/requester/engine.go 42.63% <0.00%> (-1.12%) ⬇️
engine/consensus/approvals/assignment_collector.go 50.00% <ø> (-11.79%) ⬇️
...e/consensus/approvals/assignment_collector_tree.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 266 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1e0cb1f...4b66e06. Read the comment docs.

@kc1116 kc1116 merged commit 39e6772 into feature/epochs Jul 22, 2021
@kc1116 kc1116 deleted the danu/5683/test-env-machine-account-script branch July 22, 2021 16:11
@@ -1274,7 +1274,7 @@ func TestAccountBalanceFields(t *testing.T) {
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.NoError(t, script.Err)

assert.Equal(t, cadence.UFix64(9999_5030), script.Value)
assert.Equal(t, cadence.UFix64(9999_5020), script.Value)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @ramtinms this value changed after we deployed some extra contracts during execution state bootstrapping in this PR - is that expected and is it OK to update this expected value?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah should be fine, it makes sense if we have deployed more contracts

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.

None yet

5 participants