Origin/ft signatory impl #47
Conversation
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| #[should_panic(expected: ('Account: invalid length',))] | ||
| fn test_when_permissioned_addresses_and_permissions_not_equal() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rename test to test_should_fail_if_unequal_permissioned_addresses_and_permissions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is still yet to be renamed
| ref self: ComponentState<TContractState>, | ||
| permissioned_addresses: Array<ContractAddress>, | ||
| permissions: Array<bool> | ||
| ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was going over our implementation again and it just came to mind that we should enforce only the contract owner calling this function. else permissioned addresses might give permissions to random addresses on the owner's account.
So let's enforce an assert that checks that the caller is the account owner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you marked this as resolved, but it's still yet to be resolved. assert that only owner can call this function
| ) { | ||
| // validate signer | ||
| let caller = get_caller_address(); | ||
| assert(self.is_valid_signer(caller), 'Account: unauthorized'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
folllowing my earlier comment on enforcing only owner to call the set_permission function, this check for valid signer becomes unnecessary and redundant. Let's take it off
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this hasn't been resolved too
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| #[should_panic(expected: ('Account: invalid length',))] | ||
| fn test_when_permissioned_addresses_and_permissions_not_equal() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is still yet to be renamed
|
@Darlington02 the signature component did not implement an interface
its uses am trying to figure out a way to access the trait definition as dispatchers inside my test. |
Just similar to how upgradeable component is tested. You test against the preset implementation. Checking that the implementation logic within the component stands. There’s a commented section of the account component for testing is_valid_signature you could utilize. Just copy and modify to include test for root_owner too. Also since the implementation of is_valid_signer uses the permissions valid signer that contains other logic, if that works, then you can assume other implementation of is_valid_signer works. So test against those functions within preset: is_valid_signer and is_valid_signature. |
am not sure if the test i wrote follow this. kindly review |
| ref self: ComponentState<TContractState>, | ||
| permissioned_addresses: Array<ContractAddress>, | ||
| permissions: Array<bool> | ||
| ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you marked this as resolved, but it's still yet to be resolved. assert that only owner can call this function
| ) { | ||
| // validate signer | ||
| let caller = get_caller_address(); | ||
| assert(self.is_valid_signer(caller), 'Account: unauthorized'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this hasn't been resolved too
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_is_valid_signer_root_owner() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wrong test implementation! you are meant to test for the root owner not the token owner! get the root owner by calling the _get_root_owner function on the tokenbound account and testing against that instead.
Hint: you might want to expose the _get_root_owner by adding it as an extra function to the preset account.
tests/test_signatory_component.cairo
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_is_valid_signature_root_owner() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wrong test implementation! you are meant to test for the root owner not the token owner! get the root owner by calling the _get_root_owner function on the tokenbound account and testing against that instead.
Hint: you might want to expose the _get_root_owner by adding it as an extra function to the preset account.
No description provided.