Supply/Repay on behalf #106
Conversation
MerlinEgalite
requested review from
Rubilmax,
QGarchery,
pakim249CAL,
MathisGD,
Jean-Grimal and
makcandrov
| @@ -324,14 +324,37 @@ contract BlueTest is Test { | |||
| assertEq(borrowableAsset.balanceOf(address(blue)), amountLent - amountBorrowed + amountRepaid, "blue balance"); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| function testSupplyCollateral(uint256 amount) public { | |||
| function testRepayOnBehalf(uint256 amountLent, uint256 amountBorrowed, uint256 amountRepaid, address onBehalf) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test is also redundant with testRepay, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are some variations, in the test that could be handled if if/else statements but tbh we'll to revamp test anyway, I don't think it's worth spending too much time on this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we might want to make sure that it does not only check that onbehalk works when it is equal to the sender. I'm not sure if it's worth duplicating every test
|
I don't get why the CI is failing those lines do not even exist... |
| @@ -324,14 +324,37 @@ contract BlueTest is Test { | |||
| assertEq(borrowableAsset.balanceOf(address(blue)), amountLent - amountBorrowed + amountRepaid, "blue balance"); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| function testSupplyCollateral(uint256 amount) public { | |||
| function testRepayOnBehalf(uint256 amountLent, uint256 amountBorrowed, uint256 amountRepaid, address onBehalf) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we might want to make sure that it does not only check that onbehalk works when it is equal to the sender. I'm not sure if it's worth duplicating every test
Are you sure |
ah good point... let me check |
Fix #28
This PR supposed that we don't use meta tx (still to decide).