[rpc] State override assertion violation tests #1900
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds comprehensive death tests to verify assertion violations for state override functions in the RPC executor. The tests ensure that the C API properly validates inputs and fails gracefully when given invalid parameters.
- Adds 22 test cases covering null pointers, invalid lengths, operations on non-existent addresses, and duplicate insertions
- Uses GoogleTest's
EXPECT_DEATHframework with the "DeathTest" naming convention to safely test assertion failures - Validates all state override API functions including
add_override_address,set_override_balance,set_override_nonce,set_override_code,set_override_state, andset_override_state_diff
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
dhil
force-pushed
the
dhil/garbage-overrides
branch
from
ec67687 to
86f4076
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| { | ||
| evmc::bytes const code = evmc::from_hex("0x00").value(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nitpick] The code variable is declared in the outer scope but is only used for testing set_override_code within the loop. Consider moving this declaration inside the loop where it's used (around line 3605-3608), or alternatively, moving it outside the block entirely to line 3582 if it's meant to be shared across multiple test sections. This would improve code clarity and scope management.
| delete[] value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Test 14: set state diff overwrite existing key overwrite |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nitpick] The comment contains redundant wording with "overwrite" appearing twice. Consider simplifying to "Test 14: attempt to overwrite existing state diff key" or "Test 14: set state diff with existing key".
| // Test 14: set state diff overwrite existing key overwrite | |
| // Test 14: attempt to overwrite existing state diff key |
| delete[] value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Test 20: set state overwrite existing key overwrite |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nitpick] The comment contains redundant wording with "overwrite" appearing twice. Consider simplifying to "Test 20: attempt to overwrite existing state key" or "Test 20: set state with existing key".
| // Test 20: set state overwrite existing key overwrite | |
| // Test 20: attempt to overwrite existing state key |
No description provided.