Skip to content

Conversation

@federico-stacks
Copy link

@federico-stacks federico-stacks commented Oct 17, 2025

Description

This PR is mainly a wrap-up of what we discussed during our last internal sync. It introduce a very small change concerning the epoch list creation, taking into account epoch 2.X.

Here a sum-up of the points we discussed:

  • The epoch list should be configured starting from Epoch 2.0.
  • We can safely use a +1 strategy to move between Epoch 2.X, since we plan to refactor the Test Harness so that all test transactions for Epoch 2.X fit within a single block
  • The only transactions we need to execute in Epoch 2.X are contract deployments.
  • There is no immediate need to make the epoch list “dynamic” (in terms of burn height configuration) as a test input for now. The optional epoch-related parameters already provided by contract_deploy_consensus_test! and contract_call_consensus_test! macros should be sufficient.

If this reasoning is correct, considering the small change introduced in this PR would we prefer to integrate it directly into #6608 instead?
Otherwise, I’m happy to adjust and implement any missing pieces based on your feedback.

Applicable issues

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

  • Test coverage for new or modified code paths
  • Changelog is updated
  • Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
  • New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Oct 17, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

@federico-stacks federico-stacks self-assigned this Oct 17, 2025
@federico-stacks federico-stacks changed the title aac: update epoch list configuration from epoch20, #6567 aac: update epoch list configuration from epoch20 Oct 17, 2025
@federico-stacks federico-stacks marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2025 13:26
@federico-stacks federico-stacks requested review from a team as code owners October 17, 2025 13:26
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 21, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.65217% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.67%. Comparing base (a7d73af) to head (a5ae88e).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs 95.65% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6611      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    79.88%   80.67%   +0.78%     
===========================================
  Files          571      571              
  Lines       351586   351590       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits        280856   283634    +2778     
+ Misses       70730    67956    -2774     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs 94.70% <95.65%> (-0.14%) ⬇️

... and 81 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a7d73af...a5ae88e. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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