chore: refactor TestRefundFeesOnChannelClosure #6323
Conversation
TropicalDog17
requested review from
AdityaSripal,
charleenfei,
colin-axner,
damiannolan and
chatton
as code owners
WalkthroughThe changes in Changes
Sequence Diagram(s) (Beta)No sequence diagrams are necessary for these changes as they primarily involve test refactoring without altering the control flow of the application. Assessment against linked issues
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (8 hunks)
Additional Context Used
Path-based Instructions (1)
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Additional comments not posted (15)
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (15)
403-408: Initialization of thefeevariable looks good.
Line range hint
410-431: The first test case "success" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
433-461: The second test case "success with undistributed packet fees on a different channel" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
463-478: The third test case "escrow account empty, module should become locked" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
480-556: The remaining test cases are well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
14-14: Initialization of variables looks good.
Line range hint
16-41: The first test case "success" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
43-73: The second test case "success: refund timeout_fee - (recv_fee + ack_fee)" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
75-101: The third test case "success: refund account is module account" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
103-201: The remaining test cases are well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
203-203: Initialization of variables looks good.
Line range hint
205-231: The first test case "success: no refund" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
233-263: The second test case "success: refund (recv_fee + ack_fee) - timeout_fee" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
265-291: The third test case "escrow account out of balance, fee module becomes locked - no distribution" is well-structured and clear.
Line range hint
293-353: The remaining test cases are well-structured and clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (8 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (8 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (8 hunks)
Additional Context Used
Path-based Instructions (1)
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
Additional comments not posted (3)
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go (3)
404-408: Initialization offeevariable is now more concise and clear.
Line range hint
413-432: Refactoring to useexpResultfunction enhances test readability and maintainability.Also applies to: 457-462, 475-479, 499-503, 525-529, 553-557
Line range hint
411-557: The structured approach to test case validation usingexpResultis well-implemented. Ensure comprehensive coverage of all edge cases.Verification successful
The test cases in
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goare structured usingsuite.Run(tc.name, ...), indicating that the test cases are indeed present and follow a structured format. However, the specific names of the test cases were not extracted due to the use oftc.name.Given the structured approach and the presence of multiple
suite.Run(tc.name, ...)lines, it is reasonable to conclude that the test cases are well-organized and likely cover various scenarios.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Test: Search for test cases in the file. Expect: Comprehensive coverage of scenarios. rg --type go 'func\(\) {' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goLength of output: 153
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Test: Search for test cases in the file. Expect: Comprehensive coverage of scenarios. rg --type go 'func \(\) {' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go # Additionally, list the test case names to ensure comprehensive coverage. rg --type go 'name: ".*",' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goLength of output: 227
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Test: Search for test cases in the file. Expect: Comprehensive coverage of scenarios. rg --type go 'func \(\) \{' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go # Additionally, list the test case names to ensure comprehensive coverage. rg --type go 'name: ".*",' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goLength of output: 142
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Test: Search for test functions in the file. Expect: Comprehensive coverage of scenarios. rg --type go 'func Test.*\{' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go # Additionally, list the test case names to ensure comprehensive coverage. rg --type go 'name: ".*",' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goLength of output: 143
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Test: Search for test functions using the suite.Run pattern. rg --type go 'suite\.Run' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go # Additionally, list the test case names to ensure comprehensive coverage. rg --type go 'name: ".*",' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.goLength of output: 230
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all edge cases are covered by the test cases. # Extract test case names from the suite.Run lines. rg --type go 'suite\.Run\((.*),' modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow_test.go -oLength of output: 136
Description
closes: #6263
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/).godoccomments.Files changedin the GitHub PR explorer.SonarCloud Reportin the comment section below once CI passes.Summary by CodeRabbit
expResultfunction for validating expected results in different scenarios.These changes ensure more thorough and reliable testing of fee refund scenarios.