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

Update Rust dependencies with bugfixes #1173

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2023
Merged

Update Rust dependencies with bugfixes #1173

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2023

Conversation

str4d
Copy link
Collaborator

@str4d str4d commented Jul 31, 2023

The previous FFI repo revision no longer exists; commits between 87faf91 and here will not build.

Author

  • Self-review: Did you review your own code in GitHub's web interface? Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs.
  • Automated tests: Did you add appropriate automated tests for any code changes?
  • Code coverage: Did you check the code coverage report for the automated tests? While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed.
  • Documentation: Did you update Docs as appropiate? (E.g README.md, etc.)
  • Run the app: Did you run the app and try the changes?
  • Did you provide Screenshots of what the App looks like before and after your changes as part of the description of this PR? (only applicable to UI Changes)
  • Rebase and squash: Did you pull in the latest changes from the main branch and squash your commits before assigning a reviewer? Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit.

Reviewer

  • Checklist review: Did you go through the code with the Code Review Guidelines checklist?
  • Ad hoc review: Did you perform an ad hoc review? In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass.
  • Automated tests: Did you review the automated tests?
  • Manual tests: Did you review the manual tests?You will find manual testing guidelines under our manual testing section
  • How is Code Coverage affected by this PR? We encourage you to compare coverage befor and after your changes and when possible, leave it in a better place. Learn More...
  • Documentation: Did you review Docs, README.md, LICENSE.md, and Architecture.md as appropriate?
  • Run the app: Did you run the app and try the changes? While the CI server runs the app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data.

The previous FFI repo revision no longer exists; commits between
87faf91 and here will not build.
Copy link
Collaborator

@LukasKorba LukasKorba left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tested it and migration happens within mili to units of seconds. Thx

@str4d
Copy link
Collaborator Author

str4d commented Jul 31, 2023

The failing tests are unrelated to this PR, and I believe are caused by this: #1159 (review)

epk -> ephemeralKey refactor done so offline tests in the SDK pass, therefore the CI passes as well
@LukasKorba LukasKorba merged commit e4cea0c into main Jul 31, 2023
1 check passed
@LukasKorba LukasKorba deleted the update-rust-deps branch July 31, 2023 09:56
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.

2 participants