test: cosmosclient (part2) #2791
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tbruyelle
requested review from
aljo242,
fadeev,
ilgooz,
jeronimoalbi and
lumtis
as code owners
tbruyelle
force-pushed
the
test/cosmosclient_tx
branch
from
d2c7360 to
6fa0f6c
Compare
aljo242
previously approved these changes
Sep 7, 2022
tbruyelle
force-pushed
the
test/cosmosclient_tx
branch
from
d3e8e67 to
35e2943
Compare
aljo242
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2022
Jchicode
pushed a commit
to Jchicode/cli
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2023
* test: cosmosclient.CreateTx * test: cosmosclient.BankBalances * style: import order Co-authored-by: Alex Johnson <alex@shmeeload.xyz>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please see #2789 before reading this PR.
This PR adds a unit-test on
cosmosclient.CreateTX. Because this requires a lot of new mocks, I wanted to make a separate PR, in order to gather your opinion specifically on this test. In particular, I would like to know if you're fine with this test pattern, and how it is written.The PR introduces 4 new mocks, that are now part of the
cosmosclient.Clientstruct fields :accountRetrieverof typeclient.AccountRetriever(interface from cosmos-sdk)bankQueryClientof typex/bank/types.QueryClientfaucetClientof typeFaucetClient, a newly created interface defined in cosmosclient package. This allows to mock the interaction with thepkg/cosmosfaucet.gasomoterof typeGasometer, an other newly created interface defined in cosmosclient package. This allows to mock thetx.CalculateGasfunction from the cosmos-sdk. Because this is a function, this time I needed to create a specific struct that exposesCalculateGasmethod that itself calltx.CalculateGas. I can understand if some of you find this pattern cumbersome, but afaik this is the only way to mock a function call.Now the cool part of this is ofc the tests: I can test all the different cases we have in
CreateTx; like when fauchet is enabled with enough or insufficient balances, when fees and gasPrices are both provided, how gas amount is computed etc...For me the benefit is worth the small amount of complexity added in the
Clientimplementation. But maybe you're not agree, then let's discuss :)