test: clarify expect emit mismatch output#15194
Merged
Merged
Conversation
2243afa to
1d9ca4b
Compare
1d9ca4b to
3e36001
Compare
mablr
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2026
grandizzy
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improves expect emit mismatch reporting for same-name events with different indexed topic layouts, then updates the affected failure assertion snapshots.
The same-name indexed-layout case now reports
SomethingElse indexed topic count mismatch: expected 1, got 0instead of the misleadingSomethingElse != expected SomethingElse.The count-based fixture still reports
SomethingElse != expected Somethingbecause it is a real different-event mismatch: the test expectsSomething(...)and the contract emitsSomethingElse(...).This fixes the nightly flaky test failure in
forge::cli::failure_assertions::flaky_expect_emit_tests_should_fail.close #15191
close #15192
Prompted by: @grandizzy