Functional test tx type 6 - Subtask #678 - Closes #935 #953
Conversation
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
2 times, most recently
from
213fd24
to
c9b3456
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
from
c9b3456
to
bb31fbe
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
from
830f168
to
ef68d1a
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
5 times, most recently
from
c790155
to
9478e4d
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
3 times, most recently
from
081e3ce
to
fac39c6
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
4 times, most recently
from
07b500b
to
632a168
Compare
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
from
632a168
to
5f04316
Compare
Rollback the removal of shared dapp getGenesis function
diego-G
force-pushed
the
935-functional_test_tx_type_6
branch
from
5f04316
to
77ecc26
Compare
|
|
||
| return sendTransactionPromise(transaction).then(function (res) { | ||
| node.expect(res).to.have.property('status').to.equal(400); | ||
| node.expect(res).to.have.nested.property('body.message').to.equal('Invalid transaction body - Failed to validate transaction schema: Value -1 is less than minimum 0'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we allowing 0 lsk in transfers? The minimum should be 1, just like a type 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This the minimum defined by the parent transaction schema, where child types might only have a fee.
Then for an actual transfer it is checked here in verify: https://github.com/LiskHQ/lisk/blob/development/logic/transfer.js#L62
Schema checks are designed to be less concrete to allow for inheritance pattern.
| describe('transactions processing', function () { | ||
|
|
||
| it('invented dapp id should fail', function () { | ||
| var inventedDappId = '1'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe call this unknownDapp instead.
| @@ -104,6 +104,9 @@ function invalidAssets (account, option, badTransactions) { | |||
| case 'dapp': | |||
| transaction = node.lisk.dapp.createDapp(account.password, null, node.guestbookDapp); | |||
| break; | |||
| case 'inTransfer': | |||
| transaction = node.lisk.transfer.createInTransfer(node.guestbookDapp.id, Date.now(), node.gAccount.password); | |||
| break; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The naming here is odd. The other cases go node.lisk.NAME.
Here we are using the name of type 0 as the base name. Should it be called intransfer instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The naming here is odd. The other cases go node.lisk.NAME.
I believe naming relates to how the lisk-js API is designed.
Here we are using the name of type 0 as the base name. Should it be called intransfer instead?
This is a correct strategy, using parent/base type name, which all cases are.
Subtask #678
Closes #935