Skip to content

Update celo-bls-go version to v0.3.4#2012

Merged
mstraka100 merged 4 commits intomasterfrom
straka/celo-bls-go-v0.3.4
Feb 16, 2023
Merged

Update celo-bls-go version to v0.3.4#2012
mstraka100 merged 4 commits intomasterfrom
straka/celo-bls-go-v0.3.4

Conversation

@mstraka100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Updates celo-bls-go dependency to v0.3.4, which is identical to v0.3.4 except it is in sync with the commit in https://proxy.golang.org/github.com/celo-org/celo-bls-go/@v/v0.3.4.info. This is to fix #2005.

Tested

No functional code changes were made. CI tests should be sufficient.

@mstraka100 mstraka100 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 15, 2023 17:07
@mstraka100 mstraka100 requested review from mcortesi and palango and removed request for a team February 15, 2023 17:07
@piersy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

piersy commented Feb 15, 2023

Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/... for ./consensus/istanbul/... at commit bd81cf1

coverage: 47.7% of statements across all listed packages
coverage:  52.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul
coverage:  42.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce
coverage:  55.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest
coverage:  24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica
coverage:  56.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core
coverage:  50.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy
coverage:  64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime
coverage:  51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator
coverage:  79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random
CommentID: 56474233a9

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Feb 15, 2023

Codecov Report

Base: 54.82% // Head: 54.84% // Increases project coverage by +0.02% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (bd81cf1) compared to base (e831c00).
Patch coverage: 60.21% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2012      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   54.82%   54.84%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         688      695       +7     
  Lines       92542    93258     +716     
==========================================
+ Hits        50737    51151     +414     
- Misses      37993    38263     +270     
- Partials     3812     3844      +32     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cmd/geth/config.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
cmd/geth/main.go 20.00% <ø> (ø)
cmd/utils/flags.go 2.77% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
consensus/istanbul/config.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
consensus/istanbul/core/preprepare.go 71.23% <0.00%> (+7.03%) ⬆️
contracts/gasprice_minimum/gasprice_minimum.go 45.61% <0.00%> (-14.86%) ⬇️
core/sys_context.go 78.57% <ø> (ø)
core/vm/operations_acl.go 4.44% <ø> (ø)
eth/api_backend.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
eth/downloader/queue.go 80.83% <ø> (-0.09%) ⬇️
... and 65 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Comment thread go.sum
@palango
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

palango commented Feb 16, 2023

Did you create a new celo-bls-go release for this or did that already exist?

@mstraka100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Did you create a new celo-bls-go release for this or did that already exist?

I made a new version (v0.3.4) which was functionally identical to the last (v0.3.3). The celo-bls-go subrepos are still at v0.3.3 since they didn't need to be changed and updating them would just have introduced unnecessary complexity

@palango
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

palango commented Feb 16, 2023

Did you create a new celo-bls-go release for this or did that already exist?

I made a new version (v0.3.4) which was functionally identical to the last (v0.3.3). The celo-bls-go subrepos are still at v0.3.3 since they didn't need to be changed and updating them would just have introduced unnecessary complexity

Will that tag be merged into master as well?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@palango palango left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@mstraka100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Did you create a new celo-bls-go release for this or did that already exist?

I made a new version (v0.3.4) which was functionally identical to the last (v0.3.3). The celo-bls-go subrepos are still at v0.3.3 since they didn't need to be changed and updating them would just have introduced unnecessary complexity

Will that tag be merged into master as well?

What do you mean by this? The current PR just updates the celo-bls-go dependency to v0.3.4, keeping the other celo-bls-go-* repos as v0.3.3.

@mstraka100
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mstraka100 commented Feb 16, 2023

Did you create a new celo-bls-go release for this or did that already exist?

I made a new version (v0.3.4) which was functionally identical to the last (v0.3.3). The celo-bls-go subrepos are still at v0.3.3 since they didn't need to be changed and updating them would just have introduced unnecessary complexity

Will that tag be merged into master as well?

What do you mean by this? The current PR just updates the celo-bls-go dependency to v0.3.4, keeping the other celo-bls-go-* repos as v0.3.3.

If you're asking will it be merged into master of celo-bls-go, that's a good question. The branch of v0.3.* is not intended to be merged into master. It is a stopgap solution to avoid using unaudited cryptography code (BLS batch verification) as a dependency in celo-blockchain, which is in master on celo-bls-go as v0.6.*. It may be worth discussing whether we want to simply use this version in celo-blockchain anyways to point to master of celo-bls-go since it might be a while before we get this code audited with its deprioritization. We could just make sure to be explicit in the celo-bls-go repo description that this segment is unaudited.

@mstraka100 mstraka100 merged commit a0df3fb into master Feb 16, 2023
@mstraka100 mstraka100 deleted the straka/celo-bls-go-v0.3.4 branch February 16, 2023 17:56
palango pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2023
* update celo-bls-go version to fix issue #2005

* fix go.sum

* go mod tidy
@palango palango mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2023
gastonponti pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2023
* update celo-bls-go version to fix issue #2005

* fix go.sum

* go mod tidy
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.

Upgrade dependency "github.com/celo-org/celo-bls-go"

5 participants