test_: wakuext_SavedAddress get, remove, remaining_capacity #6333
Conversation
Jenkins Builds
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #6333 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 60.42% 60.33% -0.09%
===========================================
Files 845 845
Lines 111357 111357
===========================================
- Hits 67289 67190 -99
- Misses 36270 36346 +76
- Partials 7798 7821 +23
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
| ), | ||
| ], | ||
| ) | ||
| def test_add_saved_address(self, method, params): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A general question for all methods:
Do we want to have tests that attempt to save an address with a wrong payload to check error handling? Or we are good with the positive scenarios only
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can do this, np, just when I tested validation I realized that it exists only for address from the all fields, so I was wondering does it even make sense to add error validation only for this case.
Turned out that most of validation is happening on the client
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm not sure, @igor-sirotin WDYT? Should we do functional testing for negative scenarios as well to test error handling? i.e. to send RPC requests with wrong payload
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's discuss it on the call, I'm also curious
churik
changed the title
Fixes #6089
🔹 Changes:
wakuext_SavedAddressReadme.mdwith new information for functional test setup🚧 Note:
The step for testing adding beyond capacity is currently commented out.
Discussion on this can be found here.
🛠 Current Issue:
The method
wakuext_upsertSavedAddressworks regardless of the limit set bywakuext_remainingCapacityForSavedAddresses.📌 Readme Updates:
sock.connectas a prerequisite.✅ Ready for review. Let me know if any additional fixes are required!