test(system): check feePayers signature

[JulianToledano]

Description

This is a follow up of #22311

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Introduced a new test to validate transaction processing with a fee payer, ensuring proper handling of signatures and balance deductions.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new test function, TestTxWithFeePayer, in the auth_test.go file, aimed at validating transaction functionality involving a fee payer. The test includes scenarios for both unsuccessful and successful transaction attempts, emphasizing the requirement for signatures from both the sender and the fee payer. It also verifies the correct deduction of fees from the fee payer's balance, thereby enhancing the testing suite for transaction processing.

Changes

File	Change Summary
tests/systemtests/auth_test.go	Added new test function TestTxWithFeePayer to validate transactions with a fee payer, including signature checks and balance deductions.

Possibly related PRs

• test: migrate e2e/auth to system tests and fix sign-batch #22149: Introduces a new test function TestAuthSignAndBroadcastTxCmd in tests/systemtests/auth_test.go, related to validating transactions involving a fee payer.
• fix(x/tx): add feePayer as signer #22311: Addresses the requirement for the fee payer's signature in transactions, which is core to the new test function TestTxWithFeePayer.

Suggested labels

C:x/tx, C:x/accounts, backport/v0.52.x

Suggested reviewers

• julienrbrt
• testinginprod
• aaronc
• kocubinski
• tac0turtle

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

tests/systemtests/auth_test.go (2)

521-521: Consider extracting the hardcoded recipient address into a constant or test variable.

The recipient address "cosmos108jsm625z3ejy63uef2ke7t67h6nukt4ty93nr" should be extracted to improve maintainability and make it clear whether this is a special address for testing purposes.

+ const testRecipientAddr = "cosmos108jsm625z3ejy63uef2ke7t67h6nukt4ty93nr"

---

496-547: Consider adding more test cases for comprehensive coverage.

The test covers basic success and failure scenarios but could benefit from additional edge cases:

1. Multiple transactions with the same fee payer
2. Transaction with insufficient fee payer balance
3. Transaction with fee payer same as sender

Would you like me to help generate these additional test cases?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 22231f7 and 1334d0e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/systemtests/auth_test.go (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

tests/systemtests/auth_test.go (3)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.

---

Pattern tests/**/*: "Assess the integration and e2e test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

---

Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

🔇 Additional comments (1)

tests/systemtests/auth_test.go (1)

496-547: Test coverage assessment: Core functionality well covered, consider edge cases.

The test provides good coverage of the primary fee payer functionality:
✓ Signature verification
✓ Transaction execution
✓ Fee deduction
✓ Error handling for missing signatures

Consider adding tests for:

1. Concurrent transactions with the same fee payer
2. Performance implications of fee payer transactions
3. Error conditions (insufficient balance, invalid fee payer address)