Rewrite tests with mollusk #13
Conversation
joncinque
left a comment
joncinque
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks really good! Just one little question on whether one of the stores is needed
| create_config_account( | ||
| &mut context, | ||
| &config_keypair, | ||
| vec![(pubkey, false), (pubkey, false), (pubkey, false)], // Dummy keys for account sizing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank goodness for removing this, it confused the crap out of me during the first review 😅
| let instruction = config_instruction::store(&config, true, keys.clone(), &my_config); | ||
| let result = mollusk.process_and_validate_instruction( | ||
| &instruction, | ||
| &[ | ||
| (config, config_account), | ||
| (signer0, AccountSharedData::default()), | ||
| ], | ||
| &[Check::success(), Check::compute_units(3_324)], | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // Use this for next invoke. | ||
| let updated_config_account = result.get_account(&config).unwrap().to_owned(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this part actually needed since you're storing the proper account data from the start?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically you're right that would also work, but to be extra sure I wanted to pipe the newly created config account state into the "update" instruction. The create_config_account helper uses the default value (uninitialized data) to space the account, and the first invoke sets it to MyConfig::new(42). This way we get to assert a valid transition from MyConfig::new(42) to MyConfig::new(84).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok great, the new change looks good!
This PR rewrites all program tests with Mollusk instead of
solana-program-test.