Install Solidity-Coverage
maurelian opened this issue · comments
This issue now has a funding of 0.055 ETH (36.12 USD) attached to it.
- If you would like to work on this issue you can claim it here.
- If you've completed this issue and want to claim the bounty you can do so here
- Questions? Get help on the Gitcoin Slack
- $9792.11 more Funded OSS Work Available at: https://gitcoin.co/explorer
I'll tackle this along with #100
@romanjesus can you submit a claim via the blockchain? more info at gitcoinco/gitcoinco#4
@romanjesus does the documentation i wrote up on gitcoinco/gitcoinco#4 help?
@romanjesus still interested?
@stojce is interested in this
@stojce @maurelian Also looked at this and FWIW solidity-coverage seems to be taking too long to execute the code verification loop at HumanStandardTokenFactory. Coverage at the point of failure looks like this:
and I believe Web3 is timing out on the .call after ~60 seconds because it hasn't received a response. Truffle prints: Error: Could not connect to your Ethereum client.
The coverage tool relies on event injection / logging events to a file, and this loop fires > ten thousand events. It might be reasonable to allow SC to fail that test? The measurement is still basically accurate.
Opening this as a bug over there and @stojce if you'd like any help getting this to work feel free to ping me on Gitter.
(I help maintain solidity-coverage and am not chasing this bounty).
Hmmm... is there anyway to exempt/ignore a contract from SC? That's a pretty ludicrous test, and IIRC it requires probably more gas than several blocks would allow.
Yes you can exclude by using skipFiles option in the config:
skipFiles: ['HumanStandardTokenFactory']You're ok not covering any of that code? One other thing: SC is on the Byzantium testrpc and there were a couple errors triggered by the change from invalid opcode to revert. Maybe the truffle version should be bumped to latest (so the rpcs match) and this line could search for the new word.
You're ok not covering any of that code?
Yeah... I don't think anyone is using that factory in practice, so for now I think that would be reasonable.
happy new year folks. checking in here after the holiday... @cgewecke let me know if youre intersted in this bounty. if not, im going to start tweeting about it to promote it being open
coolio. want to claim it on gitcoin?
The funding of 0.055 ETH (47.88 USD) attached has been claimed by @oojr.
@oojr, please leave a comment to let the funder (@owocki) and the other parties involved your implementation plan. If you don't leave a comment, the funder may expire your claim at their discretion.
- Learn more on the gitcoin issue page
- Questions? Get help on the Gitcoin Slack
- $12818.49 more Funded OSS Work Available at: https://gitcoin.co/explorer
@owocki I thought I claimed this, went to gitcoin and it seemed unclaimed?
@cgewecke thanks for the comments. per the convo on gitcoin slack, this has been fixed
@oojr looks like its been claimed now per https://gitcoin.co/funding/details?url=https://github.com/ConsenSys/Tokens/issues/103
@vs77bb I have an initial pull request for this will commit soon 👍
@oojr Sounds great!
@oojr Yes - there's a resolution in this comment above. The error checking needs to look for the word revert because ganache-cli returns a new message since the Byzantium fork.
hi all. i just killed the bounty for this issue for some gitcoin-internal migration reasons but wanted to let you know that, regardless of the issue description on gitcoin.co.. im good to pay out this bounty if/when the time is right. just @ me back then if it gets picked back up