feat: skip new contracts on check_storage_layout

[zugdev]

Resolves #972

[zugdev]

@rndquu Here are the QAs, new contract is working great now, but I can't reproduce a collision at my local fork for some reason.

1. No storage updates, CI passing

here

2. Storage update, no collision, CI passing

here

3. Storage update, collision, CI failing

here for some reason check_storage_layout is passing but it's not something I did since I haven't touched this job, only the provide_contracts one

4. New contract added, CI passing

here

[ubiquity-os-deployer]

09bb1bf

9559223

9ed317f

a7e0375

7bb1c7b

a6477bc

58ca4e4

f344231

6f1f50f

61bba9d

69d35e9

c95eaa0

f592796

9462e2f

d0eb82f

[zugdev]

@rndquu you were right. Here is the QA:

1. Should skip new contract

2. Should skip new contract even if changed in a later commit

3. Should fail if core contract storage is changed with collision

3. Should pass if core contract storage is changed without collision

4. Should pass if core contract is changed but storage is not updated

[zugdev]

If you need a quick way to see workflow runs per commit you can use GitHub's CLI with a version younger than a year, since this change was included in this PR.

gh run list -c 6f1f50f394a06bf8081f96659814d7dadfb4e035

[zugdev]

I can't QA properly because all artifacts from development have expired. Error: Error: No workflow run found with an artifact named "development.packages_contracts_src_dollar_libraries_LibAppStorage.sol-LibAppStorage.json". We could either:

1. Run core-contracts-storage-check.yml and diamond-storage-check.yml with all contracts as parameters periodically in development. Writing a new action that can be manually triggered to do that.

2. Fork the storage check repo to change how it handles not finding artifacts.

[0x4007]

Adding workflow dispatch seems like a simple and good idea. Its just a line of code.

[zugdev]

Adding workflow dispatch seems like a simple and good idea. Its just a line of code.

Won't really work since core-contracts-storage-check.yml and diamond-storage-check.yml filter by changed files only. I've added generate-storage-artifacts.yml which will generate artifacts for core and diamond. Please check a run of it in my own repo here. Then can can one of you please add it to development branch and run it manually?

@0x4007 @rndquu

[0x4007]

Adding workflow dispatch seems like a simple and good idea. Its just a line of code.

Won't really work since core-contracts-storage-check.yml and diamond-storage-check.yml filter by changed files only. I've added generate-storage-artifacts.yml which will generate artifacts for core and diamond. Please check a run of it in my own repo here. Then can can one of you please add it to development branch and run it manually?

@0x4007 @rndquu

Is it easier to just merge and then run? You could always add a workflow_dispatch so we can manually execute from the Actions UI. Example.

[rndquu]

Overall looks good, pls address the comments, once it's done I'll properly QA both for core and diamond lib contracts.

[ubiquity-os]

@zugdev, this task has been idle for a while. Please provide an update.

[zugdev]

waiting on PR review

[ubiquity-os]

@zugdev, this task has been idle for a while. Please provide an update.

[0x4007]

@rndquu

[rndquu]

@zugdev Hey, sorry for a such a long review.

Check this commit which adds a new property at the beginning of a struct. The diamond-storage-check workflow should fail for this case but it passes unexpectedly.

[0x4007]

Probably more appropriate to update our fork.

[zugdev]

Actually the problem is forge inspect <CONTRACT_NAME> storageLayout, which is used by Rubilmax returns null for libraries, so our fork manually creates a layout storage for the libraries. Apparently it might be broken. Therefore, we have to fix our fork, using that action won't really work.

[0x4007]

we have to fix our fork

Yes that's what I meant