-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 180
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 more test assertions for EVM events #5416
Add more test assertions for EVM events #5416
Conversation
a0e81fd
to
bd72a51
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5416 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 55.98% 57.51% +1.52%
==========================================
Files 1026 856 -170
Lines 99902 85152 -14750
==========================================
- Hits 55930 48973 -6957
+ Misses 39677 32364 -7313
+ Partials 4295 3815 -480
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
48ffcdd
to
1f1e53a
Compare
1f1e53a
to
b831b03
Compare
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ func (p *TransactionExecutedPayload) CadenceEvent() (cadence.Event, error) { | |||
cadence.String(p.Result.VMErrorString()), | |||
cadence.NewUInt8(p.Result.TxType), | |||
cadence.NewUInt64(p.Result.GasConsumed), | |||
cadence.String(hex.EncodeToString(p.Result.DeployedContractAddress.Bytes())), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this for 0x prefixing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not only for that. The format changes:
from: 99466ed2e37b892a2ee3e9cd55a98b68f5735db2
to: 0x99466ED2E37B892A2Ee3E9CD55a98b68f5735db2
which is the preferred check-summed variant.
@m-Peter can we merge this one ? |
@ramtinms Yes, this is good to go I think. |
We also changed the format of
evm.TransactionExecuted.DeployedContractAddress
:from:
99466ed2e37b892a2ee3e9cd55a98b68f5735db2
to:
0x99466ED2E37B892A2Ee3E9CD55a98b68f5735db2
which is the preferred check-summed variant.