Skip to content

Conversation

@cthulhu-rider
Copy link
Contributor

@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider commented Nov 6, 2025

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 264 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 27.20%. Comparing base (eda6714) to head (fb20039).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/morph/contracts/models.go 0.00% 60 Missing ⚠️
...nnerring/processors/container/process_container.go 0.00% 53 Missing ⚠️
pkg/innerring/processors/container/processor.go 0.00% 44 Missing ⚠️
pkg/morph/event/container/notary_requests.go 0.00% 34 Missing ⚠️
pkg/morph/client/container/put.go 0.00% 20 Missing ⚠️
pkg/morph/client/container/get.go 0.00% 17 Missing ⚠️
pkg/morph/client/notary.go 0.00% 16 Missing ⚠️
pkg/morph/contracts/util.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
pkg/innerring/processors/container/handlers.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
pkg/innerring/innerring.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3670      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   27.32%   27.20%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         658      660       +2     
  Lines       41859    42040     +181     
==========================================
+ Hits        11436    11439       +3     
- Misses      29363    29541     +178     
  Partials     1060     1060              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider force-pushed the support-structured-containers branch 3 times, most recently from 03db265 to 36e3eae Compare November 18, 2025 11:47
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider force-pushed the support-structured-containers branch 5 times, most recently from e64090b to f6c53ef Compare November 25, 2025 09:28
Brings nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#534.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
If new method is missing, SN falls back to the old ones.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
It's not needed in this case.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
This will make it easier to support nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#534.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Will become available with nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#534
upgrade. If new method is missing, SN falls back to old methods.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
It makes no sense to keep domain as struct field.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Passing explicit parameters is easier to understand.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Will become available with nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#534
upgrade.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Within nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#449, there is
a need to store containers as VM structs. Since
nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#534, struct items are
stored for new containers. This also needs to be done for containers
created before the upgrade.

Since doing this in a contract update transaction turned out to be too
GAS-intensive, this implements structuring through the IR background
process. Specialized method is called iteratively doing the same thing,
but for several containers at a time.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider force-pushed the support-structured-containers branch from f6c53ef to fb20039 Compare November 25, 2025 09:56
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider marked this pull request as ready for review November 25, 2025 10:04
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.

2 participants