ETCM-468-complement get proof service tests #926
Conversation
bsuieric
requested review from
krzysztofpaliga-iohk,
leo-bogastry,
dzajkowski,
jvdp and
AnastasiiaL
Good point, I pushed the test |
![pullrequest[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/3434?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ This pull request was sent to the PullRequest network.
@bsuieric you can click here to see the review status or cancel the code review job - or - cancel by adding [!pr] to the title of the pull request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a reasonable elaboration of these tests. Now that they're more comprehensive, it may make sense to try to deduplicate them. Is there some reasonable notion of a correspondence between an accountProof and a context that can exist outside of any given test and that describes some feature of the domain?
Reviewed with ❤️ by PullRequest
| r => | ||
| r.proofAccount.storageProof.map(v => { | ||
| r => { | ||
| val accountProof = r.proofAccount |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there could be, but I would make it explicit for each test. In my opinion it makes it more readable and easier in case we change some input values in the future
bsuieric
force-pushed
the
ETCM-468-complement-tests
branch
from
925ba1e to
93333bb
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
⚠️ Warning
PullRequest detected a force-push on this branch. This may have caused some information to be lost, and additional time may be required to complete review of the code. Read More
Adding some assertions for getProof service tests