Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor(tests): Port auth integration tests to server v2 #22554
refactor(tests): Port auth integration tests to server v2 #22554
Changes from 31 commits
432fbbf
a69a301
2942559
940ce7f
8409748
bd13abb
f105e67
ce64f48
4941f18
cdcfede
71affa1
aecd1f1
b9b1a2c
2b94d76
78767ec
400e3e1
14c8813
c25f6cf
037d482
709ea17
422cca9
8c8f0e4
2c1f3a4
eb6f21b
f2b6fff
2bfe906
c60f7db
48efcfe
5e2e7ae
8d95e16
53c884b
5ad8840
455858c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's kill this as you aren't supposed to use construct that manually
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Improve error handling and input validation
The current implementation has several areas for improvement:
require.True
in a function that returns error is inconsistentConsider this improved implementation:
📝 Committable suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Improve error handling and test helper implementation.
📝 Committable suggestion
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
433-433: test helper function should start from t.Helper()
(thelper)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the search results and the previous output, I can now generate the final response:
Account number assumption is incorrect
The comment assumes account number 4 based on fee_collector, bonded_tokens_pool, and not_bonded_tokens_pool being the first three accounts. However, from the genesis files we can see that:
The comment should be updated to reflect the correct account sequence and number.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify account number assumption
The comment makes assumptions about account numbers that should be verified programmatically.
Based on the search results, I can verify the account number assumption. The genesis files and test files show that the following module accounts are initialized in this order:
Let me verify the genesis account initialization with one more search:
Let me try another search to find the genesis account initialization:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
Length of output: 57957
Script:
Length of output: 93
Script:
Length of output: 1222