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

fix(forknet): filter tracing and dumper nodes #11268

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

VanBarbascu
Copy link
Contributor

We introduced 2 new nodes to the network. We don't want to pick them up as validator nodes.

@VanBarbascu VanBarbascu requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2024 19:03
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.02%. Comparing base (fefea43) to head (6e7fb5a).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11268      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.99%   71.02%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         780      780              
  Lines      154984   154984              
  Branches   154984   154984              
==========================================
+ Hits       110037   110073      +36     
+ Misses      40204    40166      -38     
- Partials     4743     4745       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility 0.24% <ø> (ø)
db-migration 0.24% <ø> (ø)
genesis-check 1.40% <ø> (ø)
integration-tests 37.08% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️
linux 68.92% <ø> (+0.02%) ⬆️
linux-nightly 70.46% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
macos 52.61% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
pytests 1.63% <ø> (ø)
sanity-checks 1.42% <ø> (ø)
unittests 65.60% <ø> (+0.02%) ⬆️
upgradability 0.29% <ø> (ø)

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

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

@marcelo-gonzalez
Copy link
Contributor

btw, I'm currently working on actually implementing the stuff that needs to get done to configure one of the nodes not to validate and to dump state parts, and I think it makes sense to go with a different approach than what this PR gives a skeleton for tbh

@VanBarbascu
Copy link
Contributor Author

We will go ahead with Marcelo's proposal.

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.

None yet

2 participants