Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add gateway conformance test workflow #452

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hannahhoward
Copy link
Collaborator

@hannahhoward hannahhoward commented Oct 12, 2023

Since the official test of trustless gateway lives in ipfs/gateway-conformance, adding the test here.

Still working on this, especially cause we're not currently passing.

@hannahhoward hannahhoward force-pushed the feat/add-gateway-conformance branch 3 times, most recently from 2822788 to 7ce163a Compare October 12, 2023 19:30
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 12, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #452 (2c7fb51) into main (2cf1121) will increase coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #452      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.73%   75.85%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          87       87              
  Lines        6677     6677              
==========================================
+ Hits         5057     5065       +8     
+ Misses       1335     1332       -3     
+ Partials      285      280       -5     

see 7 files with indirect coverage changes

@hannahhoward hannahhoward force-pushed the feat/add-gateway-conformance branch from 7ce163a to be3c829 Compare October 12, 2023 19:37
@hannahhoward hannahhoward force-pushed the feat/add-gateway-conformance branch from be3c829 to 2c7fb51 Compare October 12, 2023 22:46
@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Oct 13, 2023

If you end up changing the way that trustless-utils handles ranges, you may find that the e2e test in here fails; because frisbii is using the same logic to serve that data, so it's a matter of making the changes flow through the set of things, frisbii first and then lassie. i.e. e2e failing here isn't necessarily a problem and should be easily fixable if we agree that the change is correct and should be bubbled up through the stack.

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