-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11.9k
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
Improve ERC165 testing #1203
Labels
good first issue
Low hanging fruit for new contributors to get involved!
tests
Test suite and helpers.
Comments
nventuro
added
good first issue
Low hanging fruit for new contributors to get involved!
kind:improvement
tests
Test suite and helpers.
labels
Aug 13, 2018
I think this can be tested by checking that a corresponding |
can I take this one? |
@nikeshnazareth go ahead! This one has been in the backlog for a long time now, but it'd be great if we got it done :) |
nventuro
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2019
* Rename variable from thing to contractUnderTest * Compute function signatures in ERC165 interfaces The ERC165 tests currently precompute some known interface ids. This commit extracts the interfaces into a separate object and precomputes the individual function signatures. This will be useful to identify contracts that support an interface but do not implement all of the corresponding functions. * Add tests for ERC165 interface implementations The ERC165 tests confirm that contracts claim to support particular interfaces ( using the supportsInterface method ) This commit extends those tests to confirm that the corresponding functions are included in the contract ABI. It also rewords the existing test names in order to group the implementation tests with the corresponding interface tests. * Remove obsolete ERC721Exists interface constant
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue
Low hanging fruit for new contributors to get involved!
tests
Test suite and helpers.
As noted here, we should improve our
shouldSupportInterfaces
functions so that they not only test the interface has been registered, but also that it actually exists in the API, preventing mis-registration and errors like the one made in #1193.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: