Merged
Conversation
25056ac to
5cc6148
Compare
Member
Author
|
This obviously conflicts with any other PR, so better be merged quickly. |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #556 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.29% 62.42% -0.88%
==========================================
Files 29 29
Lines 3196 3063 -133
==========================================
- Hits 2023 1912 -111
+ Misses 1167 1145 -22
Partials 6 6 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
0.21.0 corresponds to NeoFS 0.45.0 released Feb 2025, in the node itself we're already at 0.50.0 that removed node-internal migrations for pre-0.46.0. All of the networks already use updated contracts with Node2 network maps so old methods can be safely dropped. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
MaintenanceModeAllowed is unused since NeoFS 0.47.0 (Jun 2025), AuditFee since 0.48.0 (Jul 2025), there are no networks that use lower versions, so we can remove old settings automatically with contracts update to avoid "unknown" configurations in adm output. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Contracts 0.22.0 correspond to NeoFS version 0.46.0, we're at least 0.49.0 everywhere and node has already dropped internal pre-0.46.0 migrations. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
It's dangerous, migration tests are supposed to always work, so I do want tests to fail if some state dumps are outdated. Otherwise it's too easy to forget about them and think that it's all fine when in fact it's not. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
5cc6148 to
4b61dd0
Compare
carpawell
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2025
| // all of the node structure to contract. | ||
| // Node2 stores data related to a single NeoFS storage node. It follows | ||
| // the model defined in NeoFS API specification. | ||
| type Node2 struct { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it safe to rename to Node?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes and no. Will require changes to all code using bindings. Not worth it to me.
| // 'version' method and checks can the Contract be updated similar to | ||
| // common.CheckVersion. If not, SkipUnsupportedVersions skips corresponding | ||
| // test. | ||
| func SkipUnsupportedVersions(tb testing.TB, c *Contract, updPrms ...any) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so we gonna just drop stale dumps?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replace with current ones, just like we do now. We drop migrations from time to time anyway and my concern is that this invalidates migration tests silently.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dont mind, legit with dump deletions
cthulhu-rider
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2025
roman-khimov
added a commit
to nspcc-dev/neofs-node
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
updateStateIR is gone in contracts since nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#556 (0.26.0 changeset), so it no longer works. Fixes test failure: 2025-12-12T13:37:24.776Z warn innerring/network.go:106 external request: can't invoke updateSateIR method in netmap {"node pub key": "ed92cf9dde91bf35d7d806130ce7c22cbdb639dbb59e77b0fb87287359cbf88dcb6d7faf4cf86b4c1a928b74601dbda357445ffd0baa36a29bc16be0cc5b737f", "error": "chain/client: contract execution finished with state FAULT; exception: at instruction 76 (SYSCALL): System.Contract.Call failed: method not found: updateStateIR/2"} Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
roman-khimov
added a commit
to nspcc-dev/neofs-node
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
updateStateIR is gone in contracts since nspcc-dev/neofs-contract#556 (0.26.0 changeset), so it no longer works. Fixes test failure: 2025-12-12T13:37:24.776Z warn innerring/network.go:106 external request: can't invoke updateSateIR method in netmap {"node pub key": "ed92cf9dde91bf35d7d806130ce7c22cbdb639dbb59e77b0fb87287359cbf88dcb6d7faf4cf86b4c1a928b74601dbda357445ffd0baa36a29bc16be0cc5b737f", "error": "chain/client: contract execution finished with state FAULT; exception: at instruction 76 (SYSCALL): System.Contract.Call failed: method not found: updateStateIR/2"} Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
carpawell
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2025
It is going to be deleted during migration to v0.26.0, and it should not be added again. Refs #556. Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <carpawell@nspcc.ru>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.