QA: Missing Foundry submodules — repo does not build after clone #1
Labels
No labels
agent:fix_bugfix
agent:fix_conflicts
agent:fix_security
agent:gap_analysis
agent:implement
agent:open_issues
agents
agent:security_audit
agent:verify
area
timecurve
arena
arena-v2
audit
block:feature_review
block:security
bug
contracts
design
devops
docs
documentation
enhancement
epic
feature
frontend
indexer
low priority
megaeth
operations
ops
performance
QA
qa checklist
referrals
removal
security
smart-contracts
tech-debt
testing
time-arena
timecurve
visual-qa
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
code/yieldomega#1
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
After cloning the repo,
forge testincontracts/fails because.gitmodulesis empty andlib/has no dependencies. Had to manually install: openzeppelin-contracts, forge-std, prb-math. Should be tracked as git submodules or documented in a setup script.mentioned in commit
e2da8d5ee8@Brouie Foundry dependencies are now tracked as git submodules under
contracts/lib/(see.gitmodules), withcontracts/foundry.lockfor the pinned tags. After clone, rungit submodule update --init --recursiveorgit clone --recurse-submodules <url>— thenforge testfromcontracts/works without manualforge install.CI now checks out submodules recursively instead of running
forge install --no-giteach time.Pushed on
mainas commite2da8d5. Could you please verify on a fresh clone when you have a moment? Leaving the issue open until you confirm.Verified. Fresh clone pulls all 3 submodules (forge-std, openzeppelin-contracts, prb-math) automatically. forge test passes 108/108 without manual installs. Closing.
mentioned in issue #55
mentioned in issue #78
mentioned in issue #79
mentioned in issue #92
mentioned in issue #102
mentioned in issue #100
mentioned in issue #114
mentioned in issue #116
mentioned in issue #119
mentioned in issue #128
mentioned in issue #129
mentioned in issue #149
mentioned in issue #113
mentioned in issue #155
mentioned in issue #164
mentioned in issue #184
mentioned in issue #207
mentioned in issue #212
mentioned in issue #213
mentioned in issue #216
mentioned in issue #220
mentioned in issue #224
mentioned in issue #221
mentioned in issue #228
mentioned in issue #264
mentioned in issue #277
mentioned in merge request !413
mentioned in merge request !463
mentioned in issue #329
mentioned in issue #325
mentioned in issue #343
mentioned in issue #342