Increase code coverage #212
Conversation
test/minting/MintControllerTests.js
Outdated
| 'token': token.address, | ||
| 'controllers': {'controller1Account': A.minterAccount } | ||
| } | ||
| await checkMintControllerState([mintController], [customState]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is going to be confusing to write tests and have separate functions for checkVariables for different contracts (such as checkMintControllerState) as when others write tests they wont know which functions to call and may neglect to check the state of a particular contract. What do you think of making checkVariables work for all our contracts that will force checking of all contracts (checkMinterControllerState could become a function within checkVariables)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll think about how to rewrite this. I want to avoid rewriting existing unit test to use a new framework, but there might be a way to get checkVariables to handle both. This will be a separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -70,14 +53,14 @@ async function run_tests(newToken, accounts) { | |||
| it('abi004 FiatToken pause() is public', async function () { | |||
| let badData = functionSignature('pause()'); | |||
| var tx = new Tx({ | |||
| nonce: web3.toHex(web3.eth.getTransactionCount(pauserAccount)), | |||
| nonce: web3.toHex(web3.eth.getTransactionCount(Accounts.pauserAccount)), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mira, what do you think of exporting these variables in an object directly instead of using Accounts. It looks a little more verbose to use Accounts.[accountName] in every test?
Wrote more unit tests to increase code coverage to 100%