Bounty: Charged Particles - Unit-Tests for Solidity Contracts

[robsecord]

The Solidity Contracts for Charged Particles need Unit-Tests!
All Contracts under the ./contracts folder (except DAI.sol)

This bounty is paying 40 DAI for every 10% increase in coverage! Plus a 100 DAI bonus if the coverage reaches 100%!

That's a possible total of 500 DAI!

Requirements:

1. Fork the repo and create a new branch with your username,
2. Make note of the current coverage percentage before you start,
3. commit changes to your branch,
4. Make note of the coverage percentage after you have completed,
5. Submit a Pull-Request of your branch for this issue with your submission, noting the starting and ending coverage percentage.

We're up to ~20% coverage! 420 DAI remaining to be claimed!

[gitcoinbot]

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

---

This issue now has a funding of 120.0 DAI (120.0 USD @ $1.0/DAI) attached to it as part of the Charged Particles fund.

• If you would like to work on this issue you can 'start work' on the Gitcoin Issue Details page.
• Want to chip in? Add your own contribution here.
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $69,461.29 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

[KiChjang]

@robsecord I just realized that the current ChargedParticlesERC1155 contract on master does not implement IChargedParticlesERC1155, is that intended?

EDIT: Same question for ChargedParticlesEscrow and IChargedParticlesEscrow.

[robsecord]

Ya, I used the interfaces for something else. Forget what now. I guess I could inherit from them, but it's not necessary. Good catch though, thanks!

[KiChjang]

Update: In the ChargedParticles contract, the majority of the Admin/DAO functions and all of the public read functions for an ion token have unit tests with then, right now I'm trying to create unit tests for minting ion tokens. Later on I will add more for minting a new particle or plasma.

[robsecord]

Thanks for the update! Let me know if you have any questions or need anything from me!

I realize that there is a lot of work involved, so I have updated the original issue post.

Feel free to commit in stages, and I will payout according to the coverage achieved, but please let me know if you do not plan to continue so that I or others can pick up where you left off.

[KiChjang]

@robsecord I noticed one thing -- the withdrawFees function does not set the collectedFees for that particular _contractOwner back to 0. Is this intended, or is it a bug?

[robsecord]

Definitely a bug! Thx for catching it and pointing it out! :)

[KiChjang]

@robsecord I'm still going to write some more unit tests, the last one there was just partially done so that you may be unblocked on other tasks that you may want to use them on.

[robsecord]

Thanks for the update! I have made some slight changes to the file structure. Please pull latest. I have also tried to get coverage working to no avail.. It seems it just doesn't want to work yet.. I have also committed a fix for the withdraw functions that you mentioned. Thanks again for finding that!

[KiChjang]

@robsecord Sorry, the withdrawFees function in ChargedParticles.sol is still not resetting the associated collectedFees back to 0. In the unit tests, it is still impossible to repeatedly withdraw fees indefinitely, because it is checked by Address.sol when you call sendValue, but this doesn't sound like a proper solution to the problem.

[robsecord]

Ahh, I fixed the withdraw functions in the escrow! Didn't realize you meant the one in the controller.. I have now fixed that too, pull latest! Thx again!

[robsecord]

Any update on this? If not it's ok, I will pay out a portion of the amount for the work done so far.