chore: migrate GPv2Settlement.swap balances tests to Foundry #193
Conversation
fedgiac
changed the title
Co-authored-by: mfw78 <53399572+mfw78@users.noreply.github.com>
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_erc20_to_erc20_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_ERC20, GPv2Order.BALANCE_ERC20); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_internal_to_erc20_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_INTERNAL, GPv2Order.BALANCE_ERC20); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_erc20_to_external_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_ERC20, GPv2Order.BALANCE_EXTERNAL); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_internal_to_external_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_INTERNAL, GPv2Order.BALANCE_EXTERNAL); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_erc20_to_internal_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_ERC20, GPv2Order.BALANCE_INTERNAL); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function test_performs_a_swap_from_internal_to_internal_balance_when_specified() public { | ||
| performs_a_swap_with_the_specified_balances(GPv2Order.BALANCE_INTERNAL, GPv2Order.BALANCE_INTERNAL); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I do find it a little odd to have the buyTokenBalance defined first, as opposed to sellTokenBalance (given the ordering seen in most places for the Order struct, the logical path when conisidering token flow, and the definition in the original tests being sellTokenBalance first).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And on second look, the test labelling is reversed when considering from the perspective of token flow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I inverted the two.
Indeed in hindsight I'd invert the standard ordering to be buy then sell. Still, I've noticed when writing this test that I actually mixed up the two in the function input and only noticed and fixed it when running the test. So being consistent is better here.
Description
See title.
JS allows you to be much more flexible in tests, so this code is a workaround that's only reasonable because there are only few balance values.
Test Plan
CI.
Related Issues
#119