BenchBuilder build should return Result<Bench<T>, Bench<T>>
#902
Comments
the-right-joyce
added
T8-parachains_engineering
and removed
T4-parachains_engineering
labels
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 7, 2024
Added manual jobs for code coverage (triggered via `codecov-start` job): - **codecov-start** - initialize Codecov report for commit/pr - **test-linux-stable-codecov** - perform `nextest run` and upload coverage data parts - **codecov-finish** - finalize uploading of data parts and generate Codecov report Coverage requires code to be built with `-C instrument-coverage` which causes build errors (e .g. ```error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement `<mock::Test as pallet::Config>::KeyOwnerProof == _\` ```, seems like related to [2641](#2641)) and unstable tests behavior ([example](https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/6004731)). This is where we'll nee the developers assistance closing [[polkadot-sdk] Add code coverage #902](paritytech/ci_cd#902)
paritytech-ci
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 8, 2024
Added manual jobs for code coverage (triggered via `codecov-start` job): - **codecov-start** - initialize Codecov report for commit/pr - **test-linux-stable-codecov** - perform `nextest run` and upload coverage data parts - **codecov-finish** - finalize uploading of data parts and generate Codecov report Coverage requires code to be built with `-C instrument-coverage` which causes build errors (e .g. ```error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement `<mock::Test as pallet::Config>::KeyOwnerProof == _\` ```, seems like related to [2641](#2641)) and unstable tests behavior ([example](https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/6004731)). This is where we'll nee the developers assistance closing [[polkadot-sdk] Add code coverage #902](paritytech/ci_cd#902)
hitchhooker
pushed a commit
to ibp-network/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2024
Added manual jobs for code coverage (triggered via `codecov-start` job): - **codecov-start** - initialize Codecov report for commit/pr - **test-linux-stable-codecov** - perform `nextest run` and upload coverage data parts - **codecov-finish** - finalize uploading of data parts and generate Codecov report Coverage requires code to be built with `-C instrument-coverage` which causes build errors (e .g. ```error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement `<mock::Test as pallet::Config>::KeyOwnerProof == _\` ```, seems like related to [2641](paritytech#2641)) and unstable tests behavior ([example](https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/6004731)). This is where we'll nee the developers assistance closing [[polkadot-sdk] Add code coverage paritytech#902](https://github.com/paritytech/ci_cd/issues/902)
TarekkMA
pushed a commit
to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Aug 2, 2024
Added manual jobs for code coverage (triggered via `codecov-start` job): - **codecov-start** - initialize Codecov report for commit/pr - **test-linux-stable-codecov** - perform `nextest run` and upload coverage data parts - **codecov-finish** - finalize uploading of data parts and generate Codecov report Coverage requires code to be built with `-C instrument-coverage` which causes build errors (e .g. ```error[E0275]: overflow evaluating the requirement `<mock::Test as pallet::Config>::KeyOwnerProof == _\` ```, seems like related to [2641](paritytech#2641)) and unstable tests behavior ([example](https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/6004731)). This is where we'll nee the developers assistance closing [[polkadot-sdk] Add code coverage paritytech#902](https://github.com/paritytech/ci_cd/issues/902)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
wild idea, feel free to discard: return
Result<Bench<T>, Bench<T>>and determine integrity of the bench setup, the user can then determine viaunwrap_errandunwrapif that is desired or not. Not sure how feasabile this is and what kind of checks we can make with reasonable effort.Originally posted by @drahnr in paritytech/polkadot#4318 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: