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

Add Interop Reset Action Test #13821

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

axelKingsley
Copy link
Contributor

This test is meant to show that when a Supervisor is reset to an earlier point, the OP-Node ends up being reset too.

However, at the moment this test passes, meaning something unexpected is happening. The test logs show that a reset signal isn't actually reaching the node.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 45.76%. Comparing base (78baddd) to head (d94f270).
Report is 6 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
op-supervisor/supervisor/backend/backend.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #13821      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    47.18%   45.76%   -1.43%     
===========================================
  Files          963      906      -57     
  Lines        80233    75462    -4771     
  Branches       774      774              
===========================================
- Hits         37859    34532    -3327     
+ Misses       39463    38233    -1230     
+ Partials      2911     2697     -214     
Flag Coverage Δ
cannon-go-tests-32 ?
cannon-go-tests-64 ?
contracts-bedrock-tests 89.07% <ø> (-2.67%) ⬇️

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
op-supervisor/supervisor/backend/backend.go 33.85% <0.00%> (-0.18%) ⬇️

... and 85 files with indirect coverage changes

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.

1 participant