Fix wasm-issue#702 add feature flag #6726
Conversation
bogdan-stacks
changed the title
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (27.59%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feat/clarity-wasm-develop #6726 +/- ##
=============================================================
- Coverage 30.91% 27.59% -3.32%
=============================================================
Files 572 572
Lines 358768 358773 +5
=============================================================
- Hits 110903 99015 -11888
- Misses 247865 259758 +11893
... and 160 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| if cfg!(feature = "clarity-wasm") { | ||
| assert!(err_str | ||
| .find("TypeError(CallableType(Trait(TraitIdentifier") | ||
| .is_some()); | ||
| } else { | ||
| assert!(err_str | ||
| .find("TypeValueError(OptionalType(CallableType(Trait(TraitIdentifier") | ||
| .is_some()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the procedure is identical with both features, how about having a variable that would contain the expected error string, and then call assert!(err_str.find(expected_err).is_some()).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking more of something like:
let expected_err = if cfg!(...) {...} else {...};
assert!(err.str.contains(expected_err));There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that's way cleaner, changed it. Thank you!
2 participants
This PR adds a
clarity-wasmfeature flag for certain Clarity1 errors as the WASM and interpreter error behaviors differ slightly, even though they represent the same underlying meaning.Closes: stx-labs/clarity-wasm#702