-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
CCIP-019: Stack MIA Mining Treasury #76
Conversation
This helps the tests pass locally and should work with the Clarinet-2.5 toml file in the action. Mainnet can be used but need to be added as requirements and the requirements files in the cache need to be uploaded or the GH runner can't see/create them correctly.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #76 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.29% 88.29%
=======================================
Files 24 24
Lines 1657 1657
Branches 275 275
=======================================
Hits 1463 1463
Misses 174 174
Partials 20 20 Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Since work is moving forward with this Clarinet file we can use it as the main one, and the legacy one can be referenced when running the old binary + the old Clarinet-legacy.toml. This updates the GH actions as well.
I forget where the limit is but looks like that was why clarinet check was failing!
Using mia over stx makes it easier to understand what the treasury is associated with, and the treasury name is part of the suggestion here (and fits in the 10char limit): #67 (comment)
Since we're not using the package.json for Clarinet testing it required some changes to be able to run the stxer simulation. Current process is to run npx tsc then node to run the js file in dist.
It's automatically generated but Clarinet is complaining it's not formatted correctly. We don't need it so it's gone now.
I ran a stxer simulation here then realized it all failed because we have testnet addresses in the contracts. Now I see why they were mainnet as of cb6070f so going to work to revert that and add the necessary requirements. Updated simulation here where all is working except the last step for @friedger is that because I changed the block height in the simulation? How does the output here look to you? |
For whatever reason when changing the traits to mainnet even with them listed in the project requirements there is an error that deposit-ft doesn't match the trait spec. Will update the two trait references manually for the updated simulation.
Only STX will be stored as part of this proposal.
This is a local branch to the project that includes and supersedes the changes proposed in #67, and should allow us to collaboratively work on the PR.