-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test(system): check feePayers signature #22389
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduce a new test function, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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:
- Multiple transactions with the same fee payer
- Transaction with insufficient fee payer balance
- 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
📒 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 signaturesConsider adding tests for:
- Concurrent transactions with the same fee payer
- Performance implications of fee payer transactions
- Error conditions (insufficient balance, invalid fee payer address)
(cherry picked from commit 7b9a89b)
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...
!
in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.md
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...
Summary by CodeRabbit