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

Autogen solidity wrappers #13062

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 2, 2024

Conversation

HenryNguyen5
Copy link
Collaborator

Tested on #13008

Copy link
Collaborator

@DeividasK DeividasK left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

😍 this is great! I don't understand all the infra-related env vars and their usage, so you probably still want someone from releng/tooling to take a look, but I approve the CI/GHA setup. One thing to potentially inspect is whether this works on conflicts with base. Currently, I am manually resolving them.

@elatoskinas
Copy link
Contributor

elatoskinas commented May 1, 2024

+1 this is awesome!

We were exploring a different approach using pre-push hooks to automate this (in a ccip proposal), but if this works well in CI that's even better :)

What do you think about also adding gas snapshot generation in the same way as for the wrappers?

@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 force-pushed the chore/KS-178_autogen_solidity_wrappers branch from 3072e97 to 84fe901 Compare May 2, 2024 01:40
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 requested a review from momentmaker May 2, 2024 01:49
@HenryNguyen5
Copy link
Collaborator Author

+1 this is awesome!

We were exploring a different approach using pre-push hooks to automate this (in a ccip proposal), but if this works well in CI that's even better :)

What do you think about also adding gas snapshot generation in the same way as for the wrappers?

Definitely, the ideal goal is that we can use this for anything that can be auto generated, since those are toil tasks that we shouldn't have to worry about. I wanted to get a small use case working well first, then we can expand upon it

@HenryNguyen5
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ably still want someone from releng/tooling to take a look, but I approve the CI/GHA setup. One thing to potentially inspect is whether this works on conflicts with base. Currently, I am manually resolving them.

What do you mean "conflicts with base"? This action directly commits back to the PR branch. I'm not sure how it would generate conflicts that would cause the action to fail.

Unless you mean the case where your solidity changes create conflicts against trunk. In this case, I think the only thing we'd have to do (which you do now locally) is to perform a -X theirs during a rebase ontop of trunk so we always take our generated file changes. I would be open to an extension of this action to do that for us later on. I want to make sure it's stable as-is in its small scope form first though.

@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 requested a review from momentmaker May 2, 2024 03:10
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 enabled auto-merge May 2, 2024 03:10
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 force-pushed the chore/KS-178_autogen_solidity_wrappers branch from 84fe901 to 183b65f Compare May 2, 2024 03:12
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 force-pushed the chore/KS-178_autogen_solidity_wrappers branch from 183b65f to 1bf0ba2 Compare May 2, 2024 03:13
@cl-sonarqube-production
Copy link

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 requested a review from DeividasK May 2, 2024 05:21
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 added this pull request to the merge queue May 2, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit 8cf34d2 May 2, 2024
107 checks passed
@HenryNguyen5 HenryNguyen5 deleted the chore/KS-178_autogen_solidity_wrappers branch May 2, 2024 13:26
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.

4 participants