integration tests for esdt-safe contract #6543
Conversation
| @@ -114,6 +115,18 @@ func deployBridgeSetup( | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func esdtSafeContract( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why even make this func just to add an extra @? Simply use DeployContract
| // 2. transfer from main chain to sovereign chain | ||
| // 3. transfer again the same tokens from sovereign chain to main chain | ||
| // tokens are originated from sovereign chain | ||
| // esdt-safe contract in main chain will issue its own tokens ar registerToken step |
|
|
||
| receiverShardId := uint32(0) | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO uncomment dynamic tokens, currently there is no issue function in SC framework for dynamic esdts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a Jira task for this.
| } | ||
| txResult = deposit(t, cs, receiver.Bytes, &receiverNonce, bridgeData.ESDTSafeAddress, []chainSim.ArgsDepositToken{depositToken}, wallet.Bytes) | ||
| chainSim.RequireSuccessfulTransaction(t, txResult) | ||
| chainSim.RequireAccountHasToken(t, cs, getTokenIdentifier(receivedToken), receiver.Bech32, big.NewInt(0).Sub(receivedToken.Amount, big.NewInt(1))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we simply check the account has 0 balance?
| tokenSupply, err := cs.GetNodeHandler(esdtSafeAddrShard).GetFacadeHandler().GetTokenSupply(getTokenIdentifier(depositToken)) | ||
| require.Nil(t, err) | ||
| require.NotNil(t, tokenSupply) | ||
| require.Equal(t, depositAmount.String(), tokenSupply.Burned) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[question]
How come this token's supply is always burned, yet the contract keeps one extra for for (dynamic) SFT/MetaESDT?
Is that kept one a different one that the contract mints?
| return strings.Split(tokenIdentifier, "-")[1] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func generateHelloInAllShards(t *testing.T, cs chainSim.ChainSimulator) map[uint32]dtos.WalletAddress { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please change this function name.
|
|
||
| waitIfCrossShardProcessing(cs, esdtSafeAddrShard, receiverShardId) | ||
| chainSim.RequireAccountHasToken(t, cs, getTokenIdentifier(receivedToken), receiver.Bech32, receivedToken.Amount) | ||
| if isSftOrMeta(receivedToken.Type) { // expect the contract to have 1 token |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we also have an else here?
| trnsData := &transferData{ | ||
| GasLimit: uint64(10000000), | ||
| Function: []byte("hello"), | ||
| Args: [][]byte{{0x01}}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this contract with 0 numbers if we always call it with non zero value?
| func generateAccountsAndTokens( | ||
| t *testing.T, | ||
| cs chainSim.ChainSimulator, | ||
| ) map[*chainSim.Account]chainSim.ArgsDepositToken { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
map[*obj]?
That's really problematic, not ok.
Reasoning behind the pull request
Proposed changes
Testing procedure
Pre-requisites
Based on the Contributing Guidelines the PR author and the reviewers must check the following requirements are met:
featbranch created?featbranch merging, do all satellite projects have a proper tag insidego.mod?