Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn contract_deployment_with_salt() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we reformat this to match our testing format standard:
https://www.notion.so/fuellabs/Engineering-Style-Guide-83ba6fd81f12443796c814ecfc746b39?pvs=4#1742f2293f3180f0931bd1355b0afa13
It looks like the setup_program_test! macro is obscuring some of this, so maybe just
- rename the test to clarify what we are doing and what we are expecting:
sut__when..._then... - for the
given/when/then, maybe just put the//givenand//whenabove the macro and the//thenabove the asserts
I don't really know what this test is doing other than deploying contract with salt. i.e. I don't know what the alternative case is. Should/can we have another test with the unhappy path? Is it even possible to deploy without salt? This would help elucidate the full picture for a layman looking at the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MitchTurner thanks for the feedback. I will give more context on the test and then we can agree what to do.
We use the same contract code and have 3 Deploy "commands". First deploy will deploy the contract without random salt. The second deploy will do nothing as we already deploy the contract without random salt - the contract_id will be the same. And third deploy will use random salt so we will get a new contract_id.
3 participants
closes: #1181
Checklist