test(dpp): add numerical assertions to evaluate_interval distribution tests

[thepastaclaw]

Problem

The 72 tests in evaluate_interval.rs verify distribution function outputs by comparing explanation strings. But the expected string is built from the result itself:

let result = dist.evaluate_interval_with_explanation(...).unwrap();

// ❌ Expected string uses result.total_amount — the thing we're testing!
let expected = format!("...{} tokens", format_number_with_separators(result.total_amount));
assert_eq!(result.short_explanation(...), expected);

If the function computes 999 when it should be 1,000, the test builds an expected string with 999, compares to the actual string with 999, and passes. The numerical correctness assertion is tautological — it can never fail.

Fix

Added 30 explicit assert_eq!(result.total_amount, <expected_value>) assertions before the existing string comparisons:

let result = dist.evaluate_interval_with_explanation(...).unwrap();

// ✅ New: independently computed expected value
assert_eq!(result.total_amount, 1_850_000);

// Existing string assertion preserved (still tests formatting)
let expected = format!("...{} tokens", format_number_with_separators(result.total_amount));
assert_eq!(result.short_explanation(...), expected);

Assertions added by distribution type:

• Epoch-based (9): Random, StepDecreasing, Stepwise, Linear, Polynomial, Exponential, Logarithmic, InvertedLogarithmic
• Block-based (13): All distribution function types
• Time-based (8): Linear, Stepwise, Random, StepDecreasing

Reward-ratio tests already had proper numerical assertions — no changes needed.

Verification

All 72 tests pass: cargo test -p dpp --lib --features token-reward-explanations -- evaluate_interval

Found during SDK test quality audit (tracker thepastaclaw/tracker#13).

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Extended test coverage for token distribution interval evaluation with additional validation checks across multiple distribution scenarios.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request adds validation assertions to existing test cases for interval evaluation, checking computed total_amount values across multiple distribution function types (Fixed, Random, StepDecreasing, Stepwise, Linear, Polynomial, Exponential, Logarithmic, and time/block/epoch-based variants). No functional logic is modified.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test Assertions for Interval Evaluation packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/associated_token/token_perpetual_distribution/distribution_function/evaluate_interval.rs	Added total_amount value assertions across 12+ test cases for various distribution function types without altering control flow or error handling.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop! New tests bloom bright,
Validating totals, left and right,
No logic bends, just checks we add,
More confidence makes this bunny glad! 🥕✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding numerical assertions to test cases in evaluate_interval distribution tests to replace tautological string comparisons.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[thepastaclaw]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[PastaPastaPasta]

I've ran tests; and confirmed this works. Merging