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

Solve #69 (Tests improvements) #87

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 6, 2024
Merged

Solve #69 (Tests improvements) #87

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 6, 2024

Conversation

skaunov
Copy link
Collaborator

@skaunov skaunov commented Feb 1, 2024

I suggest to squash the commits while merging.


Divides tests into unit and integration.

Clean and structure info it provided.

Disjoints mod helpers from the release; along the road where pastes and adapts "one-liners" where it relied on the actual code under the testing (preserves used function calls indication on the best efforts as comments, they're good to be removed on a next iteration).

here I came to <#84>

should add that it's also needed to
* convert `tests` to integration,
* clean hex strings assertions for further comprehensibilty. \
(This well might demote `AsRef` issue to a _nice to have_ thing.)

And reread the thing estimating clarity.
Divides tests into unit and integrational.
Clean and structure info it provided.

Disjoints `mod helpers` from the `release`; along the road where pastes and adapts "one-liners" where it relied on the actual code under the testing (preserves used function calls indication on the best efforts as comments, they're good to be removed on a next iteration).
@skaunov skaunov requested a review from Divide-By-0 February 1, 2024 10:48
@skaunov skaunov changed the title Solve #69 Solve #69 (Tests improvements) Feb 1, 2024
@skaunov skaunov linked an issue Feb 1, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@Divide-By-0
Copy link
Member

Circom checks fail?

@skaunov
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skaunov commented Feb 1, 2024 via email

@Divide-By-0
Copy link
Member

Should be out of bounds running long as usual. 🤷 Of course I didn't touch it, only one crate here.

On Thu, Feb 1 2024 at 09:12:03 AM -0800, Yush G @.> wrote: Circom checks fail? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#87 (comment)>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APXLOT5DJI4WRCB6BJROXBTYRPEGHAVCNFSM6AAAAABCUVGANWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMRRHAYTIOJRGY. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.>

Can we still correct that test timeout though? I can't pass a failing test. Github actions should work.

@skaunov
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skaunov commented Feb 2, 2024

@Divide-By-0 , I just run locally when see that something is changed in <./circuits/circom>.
Do they offer plans for running longer tasks? It takes around 20 min. IIRC?
Another way could be moving <./circuits/circom> to a separate repo, so it won't run unless it's changed.

@Divide-By-0
Copy link
Member

@Divide-By-0 , I just run locally when see that something is changed in <./circuits/circom>. Do they offer plans for running longer tasks? It takes around 20 min. IIRC? Another way could be moving <./circuits/circom> to a separate repo, so it won't run unless it's changed.

I'd recommend either using a self-hosted runner on my GCP account (I can add you) or triggering a modal.com run to test instead (I can cover that, it's dirt cheap).

@Divide-By-0 Divide-By-0 merged commit fa25172 into main Feb 6, 2024
10 of 11 checks passed
@Divide-By-0
Copy link
Member

should add that it's also needed to

  • convert tests to integration,
  • clean hex strings assertions for further comprehensibilty.
    (This well might demote AsRef issue to a nice to have thing.)

Can we add these to some issues?

@skaunov skaunov deleted the 69 branch February 6, 2024 09:44
@skaunov
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skaunov commented Feb 6, 2024

should add that it's also needed to

  • convert tests to integration,
  • clean hex strings assertions for further comprehensibilty.
    (This well might demote AsRef issue to a nice to have thing.)

Can we add these to some issues?

This PR did both!
(cross-linking for consistency: #84 (comment))

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.

tests in <./rust-k256> are confusing
2 participants