Skip to content

Conversation

@gfournierPro
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@gfournierPro gfournierPro requested a review from a team November 15, 2024 14:02
@gfournierPro gfournierPro self-assigned this Nov 15, 2024
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.67%. Comparing base (a803fbd) to head (2f18557).
Report is 10 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #158   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    84.67%   84.67%           
========================================
  Files           35       35           
  Lines         1083     1083           
  Branches       221      221           
========================================
  Hits           917      917           
  Misses         166      166           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

@gfournierPro gfournierPro marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2024 15:08
expectedBalanceChanges.push(workerStake + workerRewardPerTask / workerNumber);
expectedFrozenChanges.push(0);
}
await changesInBalancesAndFrozens({
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not using

expect(tx).to.changeTokenBalances(iexecPoco, [iexecPoco, requester, scheduler, appProvider, datasetProvider, [
      -(dealPrice + schedulerStakePerDeal),
      0,
      schedulerStakePerTask + schedulerRewardPerTask,
      appPrice,
      datasetPrice,
  ])
 for (const worker of workers){
    expect(tx).to.changeTokenBalance(iexecPoco, worker, workerStake + workerRewardPerTask / workerNumber)
}

then your custom method
await expectToChangeFrozen(..)
?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can if you prefer yes

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done here

@gfournierPro gfournierPro merged commit e22fff4 into develop Nov 19, 2024
4 checks passed
@gfournierPro gfournierPro deleted the feature/migrate-fullchain-worker-array branch November 19, 2024 09:43
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.

3 participants