Skip to content

Conversation

@pdobacz
Copy link
Contributor

@pdobacz pdobacz commented Nov 2, 2025

🗒️ Description

Two additions:

  1. It seems there weren't tests covering stack overflow for some opcodes
  2. Other one is an addition to the existing BLOCKHASH test, which didn't cover the situation where the instruction attempts to read beyond the 256 recent blocks. Catch here is that it comes up as MC/DC coverage gap even after it is filled. But I validated manually modifying the code - removing the decision's condition does indeed cause the new tests to fail. Not sure why would the report got this wrong.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

  • All: Ran fast tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:
    uvx tox -e static
  • All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
  • All: Considered adding an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
  • All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.07%. Comparing base (9563a51) to head (14b1585).
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           forks/osaka    #1728   +/-   ##
============================================
  Coverage        86.07%   86.07%           
============================================
  Files              743      743           
  Lines            44078    44078           
  Branches          3894     3894           
============================================
  Hits             37938    37938           
  Misses            5659     5659           
  Partials           481      481           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 86.07% <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.

🚀 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.

Copy link
Collaborator

@LouisTsai-Csie LouisTsai-Csie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR, leave some suggestion!

Comment on lines +148 to +149
for opcode in fork.valid_opcodes():
if opcode.pushed_stack_items > opcode.popped_stack_items:
yield opcode
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this approach!

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