Feat/add bulker tests e2e

[julien-devatom]

Description of change

Closes: #60

Pull-Request Checklist

• Code is up-to-date with the main branch
• This pull request links relevant issues as Fixes #0000
• There are new or updated unit tests validating the change
• Documentation has been updated to reflect this change
• The new commits follow conventions outlined in the conventional commit spec

[julien-devatom]

I cannot approve but lgtm

[oumar-fall]

in summary:

• variable names shouldn't be shortened (wAllowance => wethAllowance)
• test suites names should be clearer
• please review this pr and rebase
• test assertion error should always contain expected vs received value --> expected [...] to be ${expectedValue}, received ${receivedValue}
• no need to do refreshAll + refetchData
• the mechanism around the approve function is weird (why do we need to revoke the approval since we're reverting to a snapshot between every tests)? If really needed I would rather approve everything in the beforeEach function and revoke everything in the afterEach

[ghivert]

Most of reviews have been applied.

On the approve function (renamed to approveBulkerOrPermit2), it is unfortunately required, because I'm not allowing the same contract on each run. Sometimes it's the bulker, sometimes it's Permit2. So we can't put it in beforeEach.

@oumar-fall On another note, I'm not sure the renaming of test suite really makes a difference, but I'm not disturbed by the change neither. I feel like it's a little bit micro-managing the codebase while the tests names are explicit and that we don't have precise conventions on this. I think it would be good to have conventions then, to avoid renaming everything everytime. (I'm not even 100% sure the renaming will suit you based on your comment, to be honest. 😳 I think it can quickly lead to anyone having its own naming convention by habit, and renaming everything many times, for no real improvements of the codebase.) I'd be happy to have your opinion and a little bit more of what you think about that, what was unclear in the naming, etc.

On the naming variables, I fully agree though, namings should be consistent, that was a good point.

[oumar-fall]

format big numbers in messages

missing fix

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 2.1.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀