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

feat(PE-4388): ANT-UCM contract #20

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

atticusofsparta
Copy link
Contributor

This implements a new type of ANT contract (ANT-UCM) which can be traded on bazar.

eat(ucm-u): add ucm compatible contract code, bring in base U and UCM contracts for integration tests
@atticusofsparta atticusofsparta requested a review from a team as a code owner December 14, 2023 08:08
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: 168 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (441cf11) 7.90% compared to head (d49dc84) 41.39%.
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
src/contract-ucm.ts 0.00% 51 Missing ⚠️
src/lib/either.ts 0.00% 31 Missing ⚠️
src/actions/write/allow.ts 0.00% 18 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
src/actions/write/reject.ts 0.00% 18 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
src/actions/write/claim.ts 0.00% 16 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
src/actions/write/constructor.ts 0.00% 10 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            main      #20       +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   7.90%   41.39%   +33.48%     
==========================================
  Files         11       17        +6     
  Lines        177      343      +166     
  Branches      42       86       +44     
==========================================
+ Hits          14      142      +128     
- Misses       144      177       +33     
- Partials      19       24        +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dtfiedler
Copy link
Collaborator

i don't think we need to merge this. we can keep the branch and once we've resolved some of the remaining questions decide how we want to integrate it.

@dtfiedler dtfiedler closed this Dec 15, 2023
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