Anna Shaleva
Anna Shaleva
> i think size * number is the real reason Exactly, as described in https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/issues/3490#issuecomment-2432050884. > i prefer to make the price related to the notifaction size. Yes, it's an...
Previously we’ve agreed that this solution is less preferable than https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/3600. @roman-khimov do you think we need to merge it?
Good, updated. Then let's consider merging this PR in 3.8. I'm also voting for the merge since I agree that this solution is better than nothing. Later, when we have...
I need some more time to check the compatibility with NeoGo, and this code should be symmetric to refs addition.
> any of -covermode or -race leads to this The original problem is with `covermode=atomic` coverage mode, because `-race` overwrites coverage collection mode to `atomic` anyway. > while a simple...
And BTW, the reason is definitely not in the compiler; it's in the neotest coverage module itself.
It would be helpful for us to make such research, especially for Go/C# implementations and various set of edge-cases. We have a set of VM compatibility tests with C# node...
> Need to write unit tests for this feature somehow That would be nice.
> 1. Collect coverage explicitly (context) or implicitly (when compiling) As I said in review, to me the first option is more preferable because it's explicit, i.e. allows users of...
Agree with the proposed plan, especially with the second point, since it's good to have an explicit coverage enabling/disabling functionality.