Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
| name: Cargo clippy for Lazer | ||
| language: "rust" | ||
| entry: cargo clippy -p pyth-lazer-protocol -p pyth-lazer-client -p pyth-lazer-publisher-sdk --all-targets -- --deny warnings | ||
| pass_filenames: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these packages are not in the repo anymore
guibescos
changed the title
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Devin Review found 4 potential issues.
🐛 2 issues in files not directly in the diff
🐛 Move lock files reference non-existent wormhole_lazer directory after rename to wormhole_simple_majority (target_chains/sui/contracts/Move.pro_compatible.sui_mainnet.lock:27)
The .toml files were correctly updated to reference ../vendor/wormhole_simple_majority/wormhole, but the corresponding .lock files still contain the old path ../vendor/wormhole_lazer/wormhole. Since the directory target_chains/sui/vendor/wormhole_lazer/ was renamed to target_chains/sui/vendor/wormhole_simple_majority/ in this PR, the lock files now point to a path that no longer exists. This will cause Sui Move builds using these lock files to fail when resolving the Wormhole dependency.
🐛 Move lock file (testnet) references non-existent wormhole_lazer directory after rename (target_chains/sui/contracts/Move.pro_compatible.sui_testnet.lock:27)
Same issue as the mainnet lock file: Move.pro_compatible.sui_testnet.lock still references ../vendor/wormhole_lazer/wormhole on line 27, but this directory was renamed to ../vendor/wormhole_simple_majority/wormhole. Builds targeting the Sui testnet pro-compatible deployment will fail.
View 1 additional finding in Devin Review.
2 participants
Summary
Rename
lazertopro-compatiblewhen lazer refers to the new deployment of Core contracts that's compatible with Pro. This is a mechanical change.Rationale
lazeris overloaded and used broadly in this repo to refer to using Pyth Pro (with the new data format and new set of contracts).How has this been tested?