WIP: Contribution contracts tests #159
@ -152,6 +152,8 @@ contract Contribution is AragonApp {
|
||||
|
||||
function add(uint32 amount, uint32 contributorId, bytes32 hashDigest, uint8 hashFunction, uint8 hashSize) public isInitialized auth(ADD_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE) {
|
||||
//require(canPerform(msg.sender, ADD_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE, new uint32[](0)), 'nope');
|
||||
require(amount > 0, "INVALID_AMOUNT");
|
||||
|
||||
uint32 contributionId = contributionsCount + 1;
|
||||
ContributionData storage c = contributions[contributionId];
|
||||
c.exists = true;
|
||||
|
18
apps/contribution/contracts/test/Spoof.sol
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
pragma solidity ^0.4.24;
|
||||
|
||||
import "@aragon/os/contracts/acl/ACL.sol";
|
||||
import "@aragon/os/contracts/kernel/Kernel.sol";
|
||||
import "@aragon/os/contracts/factory/DAOFactory.sol";
|
||||
import "../../../contributor/contracts/Contributor.sol";
|
||||
import "../../../token/contracts/Token.sol";
|
||||
|
||||
// You might think this file is a bit odd, but let me explain.
|
||||
// We only use for now those imported contracts in our tests, which
|
||||
// means Truffle will not compile them for us, because they are from
|
||||
// an external dependency.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// solium-disable-next-line no-empty-blocks
|
||||
contract Spoof {
|
||||
// ...
|
||||
}
|
@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
// const Contribution = artifacts.require('Contribution.sol');
|
||||
|
||||
contract('Contribution', (_accounts) => {
|
||||
it('should be tested');
|
||||
});
|
231
apps/contribution/test/contribution.js
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
|
||||
|
||||
const namehash = require('ethers').utils.namehash;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const Contribution = artifacts.require("Contribution.sol");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const Contributor = artifacts.require("Contributor.sol");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const Token = artifacts.require("Token.sol");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const getContract = name => artifacts.require(name);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const { assertRevert } = require('@aragon/test-helpers/assertThrow');
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const ZERO_ADDR = '0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contract('Contribution app', (accounts) => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let kernelBase, aclBase, daoFactory, r, dao, acl, contribution, token, contributor;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const root = accounts[0];
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
const member1 = accounts[1];
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
before(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
kernelBase = await getContract('Kernel').new(true); // petrify immediately
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
aclBase = await getContract('ACL').new();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
daoFactory = await getContract('DAOFactory').new(kernelBase.address, aclBase.address, ZERO_ADDR);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
r = await daoFactory.newDAO(root);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
dao = getContract('Kernel').at(r.logs.filter(l => l.event == 'DeployDAO')[0].args.dao);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
acl = getContract('ACL').at(await dao.acl());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//create dao mamnager permission for coin owner
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await acl.createPermission(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
dao.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await dao.APP_MANAGER_ROLE(),
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//apps id
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let appsId = [];
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[0] = namehash("kredits-contribution");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[1] = namehash("kredits-contributor");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[2] = namehash("kredits-proposal");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[3] = namehash("kredits-token");
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//get new app instance from DAO
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let receipt = await dao.newAppInstance(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[0],
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
(await Contribution.new()).address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
0x0,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
false,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contribution = Contribution.at(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
receipt.logs.filter(l => l.event == 'NewAppProxy')[0].args.proxy
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
receipt = await dao.newAppInstance(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[3],
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
(await Token.new()).address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
0x0,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
false,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
token = Token.at(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
receipt.logs.filter(l => l.event == 'NewAppProxy')[0].args.proxy
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
receipt = await dao.newAppInstance(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
appsId[1],
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
(await Contributor.new()).address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
0x0,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
false,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contributor = Contributor.at(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
receipt.logs.filter(l => l.event == 'NewAppProxy')[0].args.proxy
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//init app
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.initialize(appsId);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await acl.createPermission(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contribution.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.ADD_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE(),
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]()
`getBlockNumber` should actually return a promise as well, so this entire function is superfluous. We're using it with a promise e.g. here: https://github.com/67P/kredits-web/blob/master/app/services/kredits.js#L150
![]() it return also there a promise, no ? it return also there a promise, no ?
![]() The function you added is just wrapping the normal callback in a promise. Wherever it's called you can just use the original function with a promise. The function you added is just wrapping the normal callback in a promise. Wherever it's called you can just use the original function with a promise.
![]() I updated it, the thing is blocks get mined instantly so veto period end... I updated it, the thing is blocks get mined instantly so veto period end...
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await acl.createPermission(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contribution.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.VETO_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE(),
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//init token (app)
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await token.initialize(appsId);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//create token mint permission for coin owner
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await acl.createPermission(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contribution.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
token.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await token.MINT_TOKEN_ROLE(),
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
//init contributor app
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contributor.initialize(root, appsId);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await acl.createPermission(
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
contributor.address,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contributor.MANAGE_CONTRIBUTORS_ROLE(),
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
root,
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
{ from: root }
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
describe("Owner default space permissions", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it('check owner can add contribution', async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let addContributionPermission = await acl.hasPermission(root, contribution.address, await contribution.ADD_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(addContributionPermission, true);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it('check owner can veto contribution', async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let vetoContributionPermission = await acl.hasPermission(root, contribution.address, await contribution.VETO_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(vetoContributionPermission, true);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it('check contribution app can mint token', async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let mintTokenPermission = await acl.hasPermission(contribution.address, token.address, await token.MINT_TOKEN_ROLE());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(mintTokenPermission, true);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
describe("Add contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let amount = 100;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributorId = 1;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let hashDigest = '0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let hashFunction = 1;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let hashSize = 1;
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when add contribution from address that does not have permission", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.add(amount, contributorId, hashDigest, hashFunction, hashSize, {from: member1});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'sender does not have permission';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when add contribution with amount equal to zero", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.add(0, contributorId, hashDigest, hashFunction, hashSize, {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'amount equal to zero';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("add contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionCountBefore = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.add(amount, contributorId, hashDigest, hashFunction, hashSize, {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionCountAfter = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(contributionCountAfter.toNumber()-contributionCountBefore.toNumber(), 1);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionObject = await contribution.getContribution(contributionCountAfter.toNumber());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(contributionObject[1], contributorId);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let isExist = await contribution.exists(contributionCountAfter.toNumber());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert.equal(isExist, true);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
describe("Veto/Claim contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when veto from address that does not have permission", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.veto(contributionId.toNumber(), {from: member1});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'sender does not have permission to veto';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when veto contribution that does not exist", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.veto(contributionId.toNumber()+1, {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'contribution not found';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when claim contribution that does not exist", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.claim(contributionId.toNumber()+1, {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'contribution not found';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("claim contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.claim(contributionId);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionObject = await contribution.getContribution(contributionId.toNumber());
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
// eslint-disable-next-line no-undef
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
assert(contributionObject[3], true);
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when claim already claimed contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.claim(contributionId.toNumber(), {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'contribution already claimed';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
it("should revert when veto already claimed contribution", async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
let contributionId = await contribution.contributionsCount();
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
return assertRevert(async () => {
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
await contribution.veto(contributionId.toNumber(), {from: root});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
'contribution already claimed';
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
||||
});
|
||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() Looks like the expectation wasn't described here ( Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (`it("does x")`). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.
![]() I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to `assert()`, in case you really want to assert multiple things in one `it` block.
![]() Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario? Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
![]() in the scenario of claiming an added contribution in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
![]() most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
![]() How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions. How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
![]() They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added. They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
![]() ahhhh yup okay, missed this ahhhh yup okay, missed this ` require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE'); ` thanks!
![]() yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
![]() In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block. In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
![]() this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ? this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
![]() idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
![]() can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
![]() blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
this one revert for some reasons
this one revert for some reasons
Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (
it("does x")
). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.Looks like the expectation wasn't described here (
it("does x")
). It also looks like there are 3 different expectations in one block here.I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to
assert()
, in case you really want to assert multiple things in oneit
block.I think you can also add expectation descriptions as the last argument to
assert()
, in case you really want to assert multiple things in oneit
block.Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
Reverts unexpectedly? And in which context/scenario?
in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
in the scenario of claiming an added contribution
most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
most of those multiple assert check for the same thing, that the contribution is added.. XD
How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
How would that work? You can only claim confirmed contributions.
They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
They very line I commented on asserts that the contributorId is correct, not that the contribution itself was added.
ahhhh yup okay, missed this
require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE');
thanks!ahhhh yup okay, missed this
require(block.number >= c.confirmedAtBlock, 'NOT_CLAIMABLE');
thanks!yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
yeah true, honestly don't know if that all those asserts are necessary... maybe just for more code coverage
In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
In this case it's only important that you describe what you mean to test exactly. Currently, there's no description of what is being tested in this block.
this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
this should fix the claim tests, no @skddc @bumi ?
idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
idk if this test is really necessary as if a contribution is claimed, so theoretically it is impossible to veto because of block number @bumi
can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
can't figure out why this one is not working, idk what I'm missing there! @bumi @skddc
blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
blocks get minted and the veto period end right away... @bumi @skddc
Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.