-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 945
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
Code coverage audit, rework to obtain coverage w/o large E2E tests #1497
Comments
to my knowledge |
Hmm - in that case @batconjurer or @mariari can you clarify the concern here? |
I agree that MASP should have unit / integration / prop tests. There's nothing to catch issues in it besides e2e tests and the lack of these tests is being a serious issue for the more complex integrations |
@tzemanovic @batconjurer @Fraccaman how relevant is this issue still? |
I think coverage is still low especially for MASP. |
I went through coverage report from #3704: https://app.codecov.io/gh/anoma/namada/pull/3704/tree/crates In our crates, the least coverage comes from sdk (14466 missed lines), node (6593 lines), ibc (2186), apps_lib (2011). I think we can improve the coverage a lot in these if we include integration tests, which should be possible (WIP in #3704). Specific section that need attention:
|
A lot of our coverage is provided by two large E2E tests (MASP & ledger transactions), which should be mostly replaced with / supplanted by unit / prop tests with proper mocks so that we can reach sufficient coverage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: