WIP: Contribution contracts tests #159
15
.travis.yml
@ -15,18 +15,25 @@ cache:
|
|||||||
- apps/token/node_modules
|
- apps/token/node_modules
|
||||||
- apps/vault/node_modules
|
- apps/vault/node_modules
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
env:
|
||||||
|
- TASK=lint:wrapper
|
||||||
|
- TASK=lint:contract-tests
|
||||||
|
- TASK=test:token
|
||||||
|
- TASK=test:contributor
|
||||||
|
- TASK=test:contribution
|
||||||
|
- TASK=test:proposal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
install:
|
install:
|
||||||
- npm install -g @aragon/cli
|
- npm install -g @aragon/cli
|
||||||
- npm install -g truffle
|
- npm install -g truffle
|
||||||
- npm install
|
- npm install
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
before_script:
|
before_script:
|
||||||
- npm run devchain &
|
- npm run devchain > /dev/null &
|
||||||
|
- sleep 5
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
script:
|
script:
|
||||||
- npm run lint:wrapper
|
- travis_wait 60 npm run $TASK
|
||||||
- npm run lint:contract-tests
|
|
||||||
- npm run test
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
branches:
|
branches:
|
||||||
only:
|
only:
|
||||||
|
@ -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) {
|
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(canPerform(msg.sender, ADD_CONTRIBUTION_ROLE, new uint32[](0)), 'nope');
|
||||||
|
require(amount > 0, "INVALID_AMOUNT");
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
uint32 contributionId = contributionsCount + 1;
|
uint32 contributionId = contributionsCount + 1;
|
||||||
ContributionData storage c = contributions[contributionId];
|
ContributionData storage c = contributions[contributionId];
|
||||||
c.exists = true;
|
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 {
|
||||||
|
// ...
|
||||||
|
}
|
3949
apps/contribution/package-lock.json
generated
@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
// const Contribution = artifacts.require('Contribution.sol');
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
contract('Contribution', (_accounts) => {
|
|
||||||
it('should be tested');
|
|
||||||
});
|
|
332
apps/contribution/test/contribution.js
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
|
|||||||
![]() this one revert for some reasons this one revert for some reasons
![]() 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.
![]() 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.
![]() 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?
![]() 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
![]() 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
![]() 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.
![]() 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.
![]() 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!
![]() 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
![]() 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.
![]() In this case it's 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 ?
![]() 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
![]() idk 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
![]() 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
![]() 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.
![]() Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc. Yes, the first 10 are confirmed immediately iirc.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
// 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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
const timeTravel = function(time){
|
||||||
![]() 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 new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
web3.currentProvider.sendAsync({
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
jsonrpc: "2.0",
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
method: "evm_increaseTime",
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
params: [time], //86400 is num seconds in day
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
id: new Date().getSeconds(),
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
}, (err, result) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
if(err) {
|
||||||
![]() 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 reject(err);
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
return resolve(result);
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
const mineBlock = function() {
|
||||||
![]() 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 new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
web3.currentProvider.sendAsync({
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
jsonrpc: "2.0",
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
method: "evm_mine",
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
params: [],
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
id: new Date().getSeconds(),
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
}, (err, result) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
if(err){ return reject(err); }
|
||||||
![]() 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 resolve(result);
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
const getBlockNumber = function() {
|
||||||
![]() 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 new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
web3.eth.getBlockNumber(async (err, res) => {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
if (err || !res) return reject(err);
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
resolve(res);
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
// 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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
const blocksToWait = 40320;
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
//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
![]()
`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.
|
|||||||
|
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
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
// contributor detials
|
||||||
![]() 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 account, contributorHashDigest, contributorHashFunction, contributorHashSize;
|
||||||
![]() 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 details
|
||||||
![]() 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, contributorId, hashDigest, hashFunction, hashSize;
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
// Add contributor from 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.
|
|||||||
|
account = 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.
|
|||||||
|
contributorHashDigest = '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.
|
|||||||
|
contributorHashFunction = 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.
|
|||||||
|
contributorHashSize = 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 contributor.addContributor(account, contributorHashDigest, contributorHashFunction, contributorHashSize);
|
||||||
![]() 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(await contributor.addressExists(account), 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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
contributorId = await contributor.getContributorIdByAddress(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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() 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("should 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, "contributions counter incremented");
|
||||||
![]() 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].toNumber(), contributorId.toNumber(), "contribution added belong to contributor 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 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, "contribution exist");
|
||||||
![]() 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 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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
const 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.
|
|||||||
|
const 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("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.
|
|||||||
|
const 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.
|
|||||||
|
if(contributionId < 10) {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
'can not veto first 10 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.
|
|||||||
|
});
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
else {
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
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[9], 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.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() 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("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;
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
//add 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.
|
|||||||
|
let amount = 200;
|
||||||
![]() 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 = await contributor.getContributorIdByAddress(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 contributionHashDigest = '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 contributionHashFunction = 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 contributionHashSize = 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 contribution.add(amount, contributorId.toNumber(), contributionHashDigest, contributionHashFunction, contributionHashSize, {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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
});
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
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("should revert when claim contribution before confirmation block", 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.
|
|||||||
|
if(contributionId > 10) {
|
||||||
![]() 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 not confirmed yet';
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
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 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.
|
|||||||
|
let confirmationBlock = contributionObject[7];
|
||||||
![]() 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 chainBlockNumberBefore = await getBlockNumber();
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
if(contributionId > 10) {
|
||||||
![]() 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 timeTravel(blocksToWait);
|
||||||
![]() 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 mineBlock();
|
||||||
![]() 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 chainBlockNumberAfter = await getBlockNumber();
|
||||||
![]() 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(chainBlockNumberAfter.toNumber()-chainBlockNumberBefore.toNumber(), confirmationBlock.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.
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
|||||||
|
//Claim 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.
|
|||||||
|
await contribution.claim(contributionId, {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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||
|
});
|
||||||
![]() 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.
|
3949
apps/contributor/package-lock.json
generated
3949
apps/proposal/package-lock.json
generated
3949
apps/token/package-lock.json
generated
12
arapp.json
@ -34,7 +34,9 @@
|
|||||||
"environments": {
|
"environments": {
|
||||||
"development": {
|
"development": {
|
||||||
"network": "development",
|
"network": "development",
|
||||||
"apm": "open.aragonpm.eth",
|
"apm": {
|
||||||
|
"open.aragonpm.eth"
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
"registry": "0x5f6f7e8cc7346a11ca2def8f827b7a0b612c56a1",
|
"registry": "0x5f6f7e8cc7346a11ca2def8f827b7a0b612c56a1",
|
||||||
"appName": "dummy.open.aragonpm.eth"
|
"appName": "dummy.open.aragonpm.eth"
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
@ -44,7 +46,9 @@
|
|||||||
"wsRPC": "wss://rinkeby.eth.aragon.network/ws",
|
"wsRPC": "wss://rinkeby.eth.aragon.network/ws",
|
||||||
"daoFactory": "0x2298d27a9b847c681d2b2c2828ab9d79013f5f1d",
|
"daoFactory": "0x2298d27a9b847c681d2b2c2828ab9d79013f5f1d",
|
||||||
"appName": "dummy.open.aragonpm.eth",
|
"appName": "dummy.open.aragonpm.eth",
|
||||||
"apm": "open.aragonpm.eth"
|
"apm": {
|
||||||
|
"open.aragonpm.eth"
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
"kovan": {
|
"kovan": {
|
||||||
"network": "kovan",
|
"network": "kovan",
|
||||||
@ -53,7 +57,9 @@
|
|||||||
"default": {
|
"default": {
|
||||||
"network": "development",
|
"network": "development",
|
||||||
"appName": "dummy.aragonpm.eth",
|
"appName": "dummy.aragonpm.eth",
|
||||||
"apm": "open.aragonpm.eth"
|
"apm": {
|
||||||
|
"open.aragonpm.eth"
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
"path": "contracts/misc/DummyApp.sol"
|
"path": "contracts/misc/DummyApp.sol"
|
||||||
|
893
package-lock.json
generated
@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
|
|||||||
"devDependencies": {
|
"devDependencies": {
|
||||||
"@aragon/kits-base": "^1.0.0",
|
"@aragon/kits-base": "^1.0.0",
|
||||||
"@aragon/os": "^4.2.0",
|
"@aragon/os": "^4.2.0",
|
||||||
|
"@aragon/test-helpers": "^2.0.0",
|
||||||
"async-each-series": "^1.1.0",
|
"async-each-series": "^1.1.0",
|
||||||
![]() Adding the test-helpers package fixed #163 Adding the test-helpers package fixed #163
|
|||||||
"cli-table": "^0.3.1",
|
"cli-table": "^0.3.1",
|
||||||
"eslint": "^5.16.0",
|
"eslint": "^5.16.0",
|
||||||
|
This should be the same as the test script itself, because
&&
is supposed to exit with 1, if any of the commands on the way exit with 1.yeah true, I changed that also to
It is the same also, but
> /dev/null &
to not show the output and usingTASK
for better visualization I think...But the thing is there is an error in Contribution tests, but it doesn't exit with 1!
I don't see how the env vars make it clearer. I think it's actually less understandable that way. In fact, I wouldn't even know off the top of my head what happens when you assign the same env variable twice.
Yes, that's the thing that needs to be fixed I think. Not how the tests are run. The test task should just be
npm test
and nothing else, in my opinion.What I meant by the env vars make it clearer, in Travis u don't need to look at the whole log in case a test fail...

Oh, I see. The feature you're looking for is the build matrix:
https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/customizing-the-build/#naming-jobs-within-matrices