@cgewecke I tested with
I'm unit testing using this file so I really need to get it instrumented for the coverage report.
So resuming, It would be really helpful if, as you said earlier, you make #274 changes optional by config and you include it in a new version.
It won't solve
preproccessor-improvements branch code but it fails processing oraclizeAPI.sol code.I'm unit testing using this file so I really need to get it instrumented for the coverage report.
So resuming, It would be really helpful if, as you said earlier, you make #274 changes optional by config and you include it in a new version.
It won't solve
oraclizeAPI.sol performance issue but I could workaround it if I can skip this file.
Ok great @VictorVicente I will add that over the weekend.
oraclizeAPI is known to be a serious problem for the coverage tool. It's written in a way that requires a huge number of recursive parsing steps to instrument correctly - for example many of its conditional statements are unbracketed and we have to modify that to execute branch coverage.
Hey, any suggestion on how to fix this pipeline - https://travis-ci.org/solidity-exercises/consensys-marketplace - all tests from running truffle tests pass, and when I run them with solidity-coverage some of them fail. I am using .call everywhere. Any other options?
And I am getting "Error: VM Exception while processing transaction: revert" as an error
@ArnaudovSt: rewriting
.solcover.js to look like this worked for me. . . The upgradeability contracts have assembly that solidity-coverage interferes with. And you don't need the testrpc options in your case. It just works out of the box.module.exports = {
skipFiles: ['abstractions', 'upgradeability']
};
Hi @rudolfix. We updated relatively recently (sc-forks/solidity-coverage#273) and should be current with ganache-cli 6.1.6 / support revert with reason. Is it not working?
Do you need more recent fixes?
I think there was a bug there and in fact revert codes were not generated. At least I didn't manage to get them in that version.
Ganache CLI v6.1.8 (ganache-core: 2.2.1) this one worked from the get go. revert codes are game changer in testing :) so yes if you could update the packages I'd be really grateful
thanks!
@rudolfix Can confirm what area says above . . . I think what's going on is that in
6.1.6 they started passing back the return data and Truffle V5 was able to do the message decoding on it's side. In 6.1.8 they decided to add the code to the error message string on the ganache side. trufflesuite/ganache-core@a04585c
I guess we should upgrade ganache-core again because agree this really helpful.
Hello! I've tried to update your package to the newest version of
ganache-cli, but something is wrong for me. I created own fork of testrpc-sc (https://github.com/Exef/testrpc-sc ) which I updated using ganache-cli master branch. Next I build it, and published it to npm under https://www.npmjs.com/package/ethereumjs-testrpc-sc-fork. I used this as a new dependency of my fork of solidity-coverage (https://github.com/Exef/solidity-coverage/tree/develop). All test passes using new dependency, so for tests I pushed it to npm as https://www.npmjs.com/package/solidity-coverage-fork. I've also corrected all places that used solidity-coverage instead of solidity-coverage-fork (especially require.resolve in app.js). Unfortunately something goes wrong and my truffle package during running solidity-coverage command errors with Error: Cannot find module 'ethereumjs-testrpc-sc-fork/build/cli.node.js', cause there is no build folder inside of the node_modules/ethereumjs-testrpc-sc-fork.
Hi there, thanks to the project maintainers for your great work on this project, I can't wait to get it integrated in our development. I'm using darq-truffle instead of truffle, and I can't get
I just wanted to say hello đź‘‹and make myself available here in case I can help troubleshoot this issue faster. Thank you
solidity-coverage to work. I've searched and tried various things to no avail, so I've opened this issue: sc-forks/solidity-coverage#304I just wanted to say hello đź‘‹and make myself available here in case I can help troubleshoot this issue faster. Thank you
Did noticed that I had no response to the PR
youve probably missed it
Can you please take a look at it
I hate for etherlime to be pointing to our own fork repo
Hi guys, I'm facing error instrumenting when using solidity-coverage on my ERC-20 contract. It said
on line above
Any idea how to resolve this beside changing
There was a problem instrumenting ./coverageEnv/contracts/LearnToken.sol: SyntaxError: Expected ")", ",", "days", "ether", "finney", "hours", "minutes", "seconds", "szabo", "weeks", "wei", "years", comment, end of line, or whitespace but "*" found.on line above
contract LearnToken is IBuyMechanism, BurnableToken, CappedToken(1200000000 * (10 ** uint256(18))) {Any idea how to resolve this beside changing
1200000000 * (10 ** uint256(18)) into 1200000000000000000000000000?
Hey guys, are you already supporting payable addresses?
Because when I run the coverage I get:Skipping instrumentation of ./coverageEnv/contracts/Migrations.sol
Instrumenting ./coverageEnv/contracts/Owned.sol
Cleaning up...
There was a problem instrumenting ./coverageEnv/contracts/Owned.sol: SyntaxError: Expected ";", "=", comment, end of line, or whitespace but "p" found. Line: 7, Column: 21
Really great that you put a tool out there for test coverage :)
address payable public wallet; coverage error: There was a problem instrumenting ./coverageEnv/contracts/AbstractPaymentQuantum.sol: SyntaxError: Expected ";", "=", comment, end of line, or whitespace but "p" found. Line: 7, Column: 21
As I can see it is not supported and the question would be if is there any solution for this at this moment?
I've troubles running coverage using:
solidity-coverage 0.5.11
Truffle v5.0.0-beta.2 (core: 5.0.0-beta.2)
[Coverage] Solidity v0.5.0 (solc-js)I get an error like
Error: while migrating Migrations: Returned error: Exceeds block gas limit
[Coverage] at ...\node_modules\truffle\build\webpack:\packages\truffle-deployer\src\deployment.js:364:1
[Coverage] at <anonymous>
[Coverage] at process._tickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:188:7)Example project can be found at : https://github.com/mstack/bootcamp-blockchain-smartcontracts/tree/master/Lab 2 in the Solidity folder.
I fixed this by using nodetouch allFiredEvents
Example coverage command:
`"coverage": "npm run clean && nodetouch allFiredEvents && concurrently --names \"GanacheCLI,Coverage\" --kill-others \"node_modules\\.bin\\ganache-cli --quiet --port 8555 --gasPrice 0x01 --gasLimit 0xfffffffffff --allowUnlimitedContractSize\" \"node_modules\\.bin\\solidity-coverage\" || true",
no matter what I do solidity-coverage runs out of gas (while normal test does not run out of gas). I even increased ganache gas limit to 40 million and truffle config coverage network gas limit to 20 million and still nothing helps. any ideas?
transaction with 1,000,000,000 gas still ran out of gas
transaction with 1,000,000,000 gas still ran out of gas
Getting
ParsedContract.sol:129:6: ParserError: Expected ';' but got 'emit'
Any idea what could be causing this or how to go about fixing it? I wasn't hitting this error back when the contract was pared down a bit from its current size if it's any help
removing them fixed the coverage - interesting edge-case!
Never considered that :)