add new storage test panel

[cody-littley]

Describe your changes and provide context

In order to speed up test runtime, split storage unit tests into a stand alone panel.

I downloaded the logs from the new panels and from the old panels, and used an LLM to verify that the expected tests are running in each panel.

[github-actions]

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf / buf (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
✅ passed	✅ passed	✅ passed	✅ passed	May 26, 2026, 8:32 PM

[github-actions]

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf / buf (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
✅ passed	✅ passed	✅ passed	✅ passed	May 21, 2026, 4:49 PM

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
CI workflow and package-filtering changes only; no application or runtime behavior changes.

Overview
Splits sei-db/state_db Go tests into a dedicated Sei-DB GitHub Actions workflow so they run in parallel with the main Go Test job, aiming to shorten overall CI time.

The existing go-test.yml workflow now excludes every package under github.com/sei-protocol/sei-chain/sei-db/state_db (race job, PR coverage package selection, reverse-deps, and full-repo coverage). Full-path coverage there builds an explicit package list and runs one go test with a matching -coverpkg list instead of ./..., avoiding duplicate runs and xargs-style overwrites of coverage.out.

The new sei-db-tests.yml mirrors the same triggers and job shape but only tests ./sei-db/state_db/..., with PR coverage limited to state_db packages and Codecov uploads under separate sei-db-state-db flags.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a27f493. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[masih]

I understand this the pre-step in more tests to come since today it won't make the slowest mandatory CI job any faster. Which means total wait time is unchanged.

No blockers regardless and glad to see experimentation here 🙌

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.03%. Comparing base (e766e64) to head (a27f493).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3487   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.03%   59.03%           
=======================================
  Files        2187     2187           
  Lines      181425   181425           
=======================================
  Hits       107102   107102           
  Misses      64701    64701           
  Partials     9622     9622           

Flag	Coverage Δ
sei-db	70.41% <ø> (ø)

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[blindchaser]

how about name it State DB Tests

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using default effort and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a27f493. Configure here.}

[cursor]

New Codecov flags missing from codecov.yml configuration

Low Severity

The new workflow uploads coverage to Codecov using flags sei-db-state-db and sei-db-state-db-pr, but codecov.yml doesn't define these flags. Without a carryforward: true entry for sei-db-state-db, if the workflow run fails or is cancelled for a commit, Codecov won't carry forward prior data — the merged project coverage may appear to drop, potentially triggering a confusing regression on the default project status check.

 

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a27f493. Configure here.}