Adding tests for Crosschain_Base and PP_Connext_Crosschain - DRAFT

[leeftk]

Pull Request Note

Overview

This pull request introduces significant updates to the PP_Connext_Crosschain_v1_Test contract and related modules. The changes primarily focus on enhancing the cross-chain functionality, fixing compilation issues, and adding comprehensive unit tests to ensure the reliability of the new implementations.

Key Changes

• Cross-Chain Module Integration: Added logic to support cross-chain operations in the PP_Connext_Crosschain contract.
• Refactoring: Refactored the template module for better structure and maintainability.
• Compilation Fixes: Resolved various compilation issues that arose during the integration of new features and dependencies.
• Unit Tests:
  • Added unit tests for the processPayments function, including edge cases for insufficient balances and payment ID checks.
  • Implemented fuzz tests to validate the robustness of payment processing under various conditions.
  • Verified the execution data and bridge data integrity through dedicated tests.
• Code Cleanup: Removed unnecessary state variables and old templates to streamline the codebase.

Notable Commit

======= First half of these commits were already reviewed =======

• Nov 1, 2024: Added cross-chain module and ensured contracts compile.
• Nov 4, 2024: Refactored template module for improved clarity.
• Nov 5-8, 2024: Addressed compilation issues and added the Everclear implementation.

======= These are the new changes after the last PR =======

• Nov 12-20, 2024: Focused on unit tests, including edge cases and fuzz testing, to ensure the reliability of the cross-chain functionality.

Future Work

• Explore additional test cases to cover more edge scenarios.
• Consider further optimizations based on feedback from the testing phase.
• Refactor and adding comments

Focus Areas

• Please focus on the tests related to the logic implemented in the cross-chain module. Ensure that our setup is correct when instantiating contracts and that all dependencies are properly accounted for.
• Provide feedback on test coverage, identifying any blind spots or areas where we can improve.
• We still need to add tests for the base/abtracts, if they aren't added by the time you review this please add what we should be testing there

[FHieser]

Didnt have time to go through this fully, but this should give you enough material to work on.

[Zitzak]

I think looks good in general. I do have a bit of a harder time reviewing the tests as we are starting right away with the implementation and not the base contracts first. This means I need to check back and forth with the underlying contracts.

Additionally there are different formatting related things concerning the written gherkin as well as the functions names. I'm wondering if it might make sense to merge the other PR, update this one and then maybe have a peer-programming session to do some quick clean up? Lmk what you think

[Zitzak]

How can we check that an intent has been created?

[leeftk]

Good point, in our mock we're changing the status of the intent to ADDED but we should be verifying that in the test.

        // Set intent status to ADDED and emit the event
        status[_intentId] = IntentStatus.ADDED;
        
        ```

[leeftk]

I think processPayments will need to return the intentID, at least for the tests, this will allow us to check if the status has been changed in the mock

[leeftk]

@leeftk this is a general comment for testing the intentID

[leeftk]

I added this as we discussed, there's now a mapping in the payment process that stores the payment -> receive -> bridge data. We're now getting that value from the payment processor, and then checking that the status in the mock contract for that intentID has flipped to added. Please take a look at this to see if it follow what we discuss on the call, any feedback is welcome.

[leeftk]

I think looks good in general. I do have a bit of a harder time reviewing the tests as we are starting right away with the implementation and not the base contracts first. This means I need to check back and forth with the underlying contracts.

Additionally there are different formatting related things concerning the written gherkin as well as the functions names. I'm wondering if it might make sense to merge the other PR, update this one and then maybe have a peer-programming session to do some quick clean up? Lmk what you think

I didn't understand this comment do you mean that the CrossChainBase isn't tested or something else? Sorry Im not following, however we might have added the tests after your initial review and so that's why you didn't see them but they are there now.

[leeftk]

Quick update here

• Addressed all the comments from the last PR
• Added functionality for cancelling and retrying failed payments
• Added tests for this
• Added a path to the mock that returns bytes(0) for a "failed" payment, this allows us to test the new functionality
• Cleaned up and refactored both PP_Connext and Crosschain_base as per the standard
• Rebased onto feature branch
• Removed redundant files after the rebase
• Updated gherkin as per our call
• Addressed almost all of the comments from the last PR

There is a core issue I couldn't wrap my head around, seems like in cancel payments I need to update amountPaid for the client however when I do Im getting an overflow/underflow issue. I believe the issue is from this _outstandingTokenAmounts[token] -= amount; Im not sure how we should be handling this, maybe we discuss this on a call or you can go in and fix it if you find that to be easier. For now I left it uncommented cause Im still not completely sure on why we need to do this.

For this review I'd love the focus to be on the added functionality however as you review if you find anything else that's wrong and doesn't meet the standard please add that here and I'll make those changes. Thanks again and looking forward to the feedback.

[Zitzak]

@Zitzak notes for my review

• Focus on failed payment
• Focus on canceling payment if keeps failing
• Addresses all the comments