[fix] #2017: Fix role unregistration

[Erigara]

Signed-off-by: Shanin Roman shahin1000@yandex.ru

Description of the Change

• Add Role-related match arm in UnregisterBox execution;
• Fix Unregister<Role>::execute by:
  • removing double deletion of role from account;
  • returning correct event after revoking role from account;
  • correctly early exiting if role doesn't exist;
• Add Role-related queries to client;
• Add tests:
  • to check that role removed from account after unregistering;
  • to check Role-related queries.

Issue

Resolves #2017

Benefits

• New tests;
• Bug fixes.

Possible Drawbacks

None.

Usage Examples or Tests

cargo test --package iroha_client --test mod -- integration::roles::unregistred_role_removed_from_account --exact --nocapture

cargo test --package iroha_client --test mod -- integration::queries::role

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2313 (176d4ff) into iroha2-dev (6973f71) will decrease coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@              Coverage Diff               @@
##           iroha2-dev    #2313      +/-   ##
==============================================
- Coverage       65.50%   65.43%   -0.07%     
==============================================
  Files             133      133              
  Lines           24697    24720      +23     
==============================================
- Hits            16177    16176       -1     
- Misses           8520     8544      +24     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
client/src/client.rs	44.04% <0.00%> (-0.81%)	⬇️
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/mod.rs	52.45% <0.00%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/world.rs	9.52% <0.00%> (+0.43%)	⬆️
data_model/src/query.rs	39.34% <0.00%> (-1.90%)	⬇️
core/src/kura.rs	92.19% <0.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 410a713...176d4ff. Read the comment docs.

[Arjentix]

Bug with forgetting about adding new match arm when a new instruction was added appears too often.

@appetrosyan , @mversic , how do you think, can we add a test for it based on procedural macro for every Execute trait implementation? It's all core crate so macro expansion should work fine. At least should be only false-positive triggering, non false-negative

[mversic]

we can make a totally safe implementation (no tests needed) with a (simple?) declarative macro. But in this case the implementations of Execute for e.g. RegisterBox and it's variants need to be grouped inside the macro. I can write an example if needed, but have a look at the ffi/src/lib.rs for inspiration.

this is what I would prefer since these unboxing implementations are so similar that they cry out to be implemented in a macro. I would prefer declarative, but that is at discretion of the person implementing the macro