fix

[BuddiBisong]

closes #164

[drips-wave]

@BuddiBisong Great news! 🎉 Based on an automated assessment of this PR, the linked Wave issue(s) no longer count against your application limits.

You can now already apply to more issues while waiting for a review of this PR. Keep up the great work! 🚀

Learn more about application limits

[truthixify]

Thanks @BuddiBisong. The coverage work here is right: four new tests/ directories for the crates that had none, tarpaulin gates at 80 percent for splitter, batch-sender, vault and governance plus 90 for asset-policy, the artifact rename, and if-no-files-found: error so a silently empty upload fails instead of passing. That is issue #164 delivered.

Two things to fix before I can merge.

1. CI is not "not reporting", it is failing to load. No checks appear on this PR because your ci.yml edit defines stellar-kani: twice, so GitHub rejects the entire workflow file and runs nothing. That is why you see zero checks rather than red ones. You can reproduce it locally:

python3 -c "import yaml,re;s=open('.github/workflows/ci.yml').read();k=re.findall(r'^  ([\w-]+):',s,re.M);print([x for x in set(k) if k.count(x)>1])"

2. The Kani rewrite does not belong in this PR. Roughly 79 of the ci.yml lines replace the existing Kani setup with a pinned-and-cached installer with retries. It may well be an improvement, but issue #164 is coverage gates, and bundling an unrelated CI change into it means the two cannot be reviewed or reverted independently. It is also almost certainly the source of the duplicate key: it looks like the new job was added without the old one being removed.

Please drop the Kani changes from this branch entirely. If you think that installer is worth having, open it as its own PR against the flakiness it fixes and I will look at it on its own merits.

Once ci.yml is back to develop's version plus nothing, the workflow will load and the coverage jobs will actually run, which is the part I still need to see green before merging. Everything outside ci.yml looks good.

One process note: a PR title of "fix" and a body of "closes #164" makes this hard to find later. fix(ci): add coverage gates for uncovered contracts would be closer to the convention here.