test: add comprehensive test coverage for Intuition Protocol integration

[simonas-notcat]

Summary

Add comprehensive test suites achieving 97.11% code coverage with 127 passing tests.

This PR adds complete test coverage for the Intuition Protocol GitHub Action, covering all major components including client initialization, atom/triple management, and attestation orchestration.

Test Coverage Details

New Test Files

• ✅ __tests__/main.test.ts - Integration tests for main action flow (4 tests)
• ✅ __tests__/intuition/client.test.ts - IntuitionClient tests (14 tests)
• ✅ __tests__/intuition/atoms.test.ts - Atom creation and management (13 tests)
• ✅ __tests__/intuition/triples.test.ts - Triple creation and deposits (14 tests)
• ✅ __tests__/services/attestation.test.ts - Attestation orchestration (14 tests)

Coverage Metrics

Module	Coverage	Details
Overall	97.11%	127 tests passing
src/main.ts	95%	Main orchestration flow
src/intuition/	95.23%	Protocol integration
src/services/	100%	Validation & attestation
src/github/	96.92%	GitHub API integration
src/utils/	100%	Error handling & retry logic
src/config/	100%	Configuration

Test Categories

Main Action Flow (4 tests)

• ✓ Successfully processes merged PR
• ✓ Skips when PR is not merged
• ✓ Fails when not triggered by pull_request event
• ✓ Handles errors gracefully

Intuition Protocol Client (14 tests)

• Client creation (testnet/mainnet)
• Balance checking and validation
• Transaction confirmation
• Network error handling with retries

Atom Management (13 tests)

• Project and contributor atom creation
• Existence checking with findAtomIds
• Batch atom creation with error handling
• Transaction confirmation and cost tracking

Triple Management (14 tests)

• Triple creation and deposit handling
• Existing triple detection
• Batch operations with partial failures
• Transaction waiting and error recovery

Attestation Service (14 tests)

• End-to-end attestation processing
• Project atom + contributor atoms + triples orchestration
• Cost calculation and transaction tracking
• Fail vs warn mode error handling
• Mixed new/existing entity handling

Testing Approach

• ESM Module Mocking: Uses jest.unstable_mockModule for proper ESM support
• Mock Fixtures: Comprehensive mocks for external dependencies
  • @actions/core - GitHub Actions core functionality
  • @0xintuition/sdk - Intuition Protocol SDK
  • viem - Ethereum client library
• Error Scenarios: Extensive testing of error paths and retry logic
• Integration Tests: Verifies full action flow from PR event to attestation creation

Next Steps

The test suite now covers 97% of the codebase. Remaining uncovered areas are edge cases and optional code paths that are difficult to trigger in tests.

Test Results

Test Suites: 11 passed, 11 total
Tests:       127 passed, 127 total
Coverage:    97.11%
Time:        3.4s

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

Pull Request Review: Comprehensive Test Coverage

Overall Assessment

Excellent work! This PR adds a comprehensive test suite achieving 97.11% code coverage with 127 passing tests. The test implementation demonstrates a solid understanding of ESM module mocking, thorough edge case coverage, and proper testing practices for GitHub Actions.

Strengths

1. Test Architecture & Structure ✅

• Proper ESM mocking: Correct use of jest.unstable_mockModule for ESM compatibility
• Well-organized fixtures: Clean separation of mock implementations in __fixtures__/
• Comprehensive coverage: Tests cover all major components (client, atoms, triples, attestation service, main flow)
• Clear test descriptions: Each test has a descriptive name explaining what it validates

2. Test Quality ✅

• Edge case coverage: Tests handle error scenarios, retries, network failures, partial failures
• Both positive and negative paths: Tests verify success cases and error handling
• Integration tests: Main flow tests verify end-to-end behavior
• Realistic mocking: Mocks closely mirror actual SDK behavior

3. Error Handling ✅

• Tests verify proper error propagation and wrapping
• Validates retry logic with transient failures
• Tests both fail and warn modes in attestation service
• Proper handling of network errors and transaction failures

Code Quality Observations

Security Considerations ✅

• Private key handling in tests uses proper hex format validation
• No hardcoded secrets or real credentials in test code
• Mocks prevent actual network calls during testing

Best Practices ✅

• Follows repository conventions (ESM imports with .js extensions)
• Uses beforeEach for proper test isolation
• Mock clearing between tests prevents state leakage
• Type-safe with proper TypeScript usage

Areas for Consideration

1. Test Data Realism (Minor)

Location: __tests__/intuition/client.test.ts:21

The mock private key uses a simple pattern. While this works for tests, consider documenting that real private keys have additional entropy requirements:

// Current:
const testPrivateKey = '0x1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234'

// Consider adding a comment:
// Note: Real private keys must be cryptographically secure random values

2. Magic Numbers

Location: Multiple test files

Several tests use hardcoded values like 1000000000000000n (min deposit). Consider extracting these to constants:

// Could improve readability:
const TEST_MIN_DEPOSIT = 1000000000000000n
const TEST_BALANCE = 1000000000000000000n

3. Batch Size Coverage

Location: __tests__/intuition/atoms.test.ts:308

The batch test uses 15 atoms to test batching (batch size is 10), which is good. However, there's no test for edge cases like:

• Empty array of contributors
• Exactly one batch (10 items)
• Multiple of batch size (20, 30 items)

Suggestion: Add test cases for these edge conditions:

it('handles empty contributor array', async () => {
  const results = await batchCreateContributorAtoms(
    mockIntuitionClient as any,
    [],
    retryOptions
  )
  expect(results).toHaveLength(0)
})

4. Transaction Confirmation Waiting

Location: __tests__/intuition/atoms.test.ts:146, triples.test.ts:164

Tests verify that waitForConfirmation is called, but don't test timeout scenarios. The production code might benefit from tests covering:

• Confirmation timeout handling
• Multiple confirmation attempts
• Transaction revert scenarios

5. Mock Response Validation

Location: __tests__/services/attestation.test.ts

The attestation service tests use mocks that always succeed on retry. Consider adding a test where retries are exhausted:

it('fails after exhausting all retry attempts', async () => {
  mockEnsureProjectAtom.mockRejectedValue(new Error('Persistent failure'))
  
  await expect(
    processAttestations(/* ... */)
  ).rejects.toThrow('Persistent failure')
  
  // Verify retry attempts were made
  expect(mockEnsureProjectAtom).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3) // maxAttempts
})

Performance Considerations

Test Execution Time ✅

The test suite runs in 3.4 seconds, which is excellent for 127 tests. The parallel test execution is working well.

Potential Optimization

The batchCreateContributorAtoms function processes atoms individually within batches. While this is correct for the current implementation, if the SDK adds true batch operations in the future, the tests will need updating to verify batch transaction efficiency.

Documentation & Maintainability

Missing: Test Documentation

Consider adding a brief comment block at the top of each test file explaining:

• What component is being tested
• Key scenarios covered
• Any special mocking considerations

Example:

/**
 * Unit tests for atom creation functions
 * 
 * Covers:
 * - Project and contributor atom creation
 * - Existence checking via findAtomIds
 * - Retry logic and error handling
 * - Batch operations with configurable batch sizes
 */

Specific Recommendations

High Priority

None - the tests are production-ready as-is.

Medium Priority

1. Add edge case tests for batch operations (empty arrays, boundary conditions)
2. Extract magic numbers to named constants for better readability
3. Add retry exhaustion test in attestation service

Low Priority

1. Add test documentation headers
2. Test transaction confirmation timeout scenarios
3. Add test for concurrent transaction submission (if applicable)

Test Coverage Analysis

The PR states 97.11% coverage which is outstanding. The uncovered 2.89% likely includes:

• Unreachable error branches
• Optional code paths that are difficult to trigger
• Edge cases in external SDK interactions

Recommendation: No need to chase 100% coverage - the current level is excellent and covers all critical paths.

Conclusion

This is a high-quality test suite that significantly improves the project's reliability and maintainability. The tests are well-structured, comprehensive, and follow TypeScript/Jest best practices.

Summary

• ✅ Excellent ESM module mocking
• ✅ Comprehensive error handling coverage
• ✅ Proper test isolation and cleanup
• ✅ Good edge case coverage
• ⚠️ Minor improvements possible (batch edge cases, constants extraction)
• ✅ Production-ready for merge

Verdict: APPROVE - Ready to merge with optional minor improvements to be addressed in future PRs if desired.

---

Great work on achieving such thorough test coverage! The codebase is now much more robust and maintainable. 🎉

[claude]

Code Review Summary

This PR adds comprehensive test coverage achieving 97.11% coverage with 131 passing tests. Excellent work!

Strengths

• Comprehensive test suites covering all major components
• Edge cases well-covered (empty arrays, batch boundaries, error scenarios)
• Clean test structure with descriptive names following BDD format
• Proper ESM support using jest.unstable_mockModule
• Named constants instead of magic numbers
• Excellent use of fixtures

Best Practices Followed

• Proper test isolation with beforeEach hooks
• Comprehensive mocking of external dependencies
• Retry logic and error handling properly tested
• TypeScript types properly maintained

Minor Suggestions

1. Update TESTING.md header (shows 36.53% but should show 97.11%)
2. Monitor ESLint maximumDefaultProjectFileMatchCount if adding more test files

Security Review - No Concerns

• Private key handling is test-only and documented
• No sensitive data hardcoded
• Test isolation prevents contamination

Test Quality: Excellent

• Line coverage: 97.11%
• Branch coverage: Well-tested
• Error paths: Comprehensively covered
• Proper mock cleanup, no flaky tests

Code Quality Checklist

• Follows repository conventions (CLAUDE.md)
• ESM imports use .js extensions
• Uses @actions/core for logging
• TypeScript strict mode compliance
• No as any type assertions
• Descriptive JSDoc comments

Recommendations Before Merge

1. All tests pass (CI validates)
2. No ESLint errors (fixed)
3. Update TESTING.md coverage percentage (36.53% to 97.11%)
4. Dist directory up-to-date (check-dist.yml validates)

Conclusion

Excellent work! The test suite is comprehensive, well-structured, and follows best practices. Only minor issue: update TESTING.md coverage percentage.

Overall Assessment: Approved

Great job simonas-notcat and team!

Review by Claude Code following CLAUDE.md conventions

[claude]

Pull Request Review: Comprehensive Test Coverage

Overall Assessment

Excellent work on achieving 97.11% code coverage with 127 passing tests! This PR demonstrates a thorough and professional approach to testing, with well-structured tests, comprehensive mocking strategies, and excellent documentation.

---

Strengths

Test Organization & Structure

• Clear test organization: Tests are well-organized by module with descriptive names following behavior-driven format
• Comprehensive header comments: Each test file includes excellent documentation explaining what it covers and mocking considerations
• Good use of fixtures: Proper separation of mock data into __fixtures__/ directory for reusability
• Consistent patterns: Uses jest.unstable_mockModule consistently for ESM compatibility

Test Coverage

• Outstanding coverage: 97.11% coverage across all major components
• Edge cases covered: Tests include boundary conditions (empty arrays, batch size multiples, etc.)
• Error scenarios: Comprehensive error testing including retry logic, network failures, and different failure modes
• Integration tests: Good balance of unit and integration testing in main.test.ts

Code Quality

• Type safety: Excellent use of TypeScript types with proper Hex casting
• Mock realism: Mocks accurately simulate real behavior (e.g., transaction hashes, balances)
• Test isolation: Proper use of beforeEach for mock cleanup between tests
• Assertions: Well-crafted assertions that verify both happy paths and error conditions

---

Areas for Improvement

1. Security: Hardcoded Test Private Key Pattern (client.test.ts:70-71)

The test private key uses a simple sequential pattern. While the comment clarifies this is for testing only, using a simple pattern could be misleading to developers who might copy this for other purposes.

Recommendation: Use a more random-looking value (even if still fake) and strengthen the warning comment to make it clear this should never be used as a pattern for real keys.

2. CI Configuration: Fallback Private Key (.github/workflows/ci.yml:60-63)

The fallback private key uses a well-known test key pattern. While this ensures tests don't fail, consider whether tests should fail explicitly when no TEST_PRIVATE_KEY is set, requiring explicit test key configuration.

Recommendations:

• Add a comment in the workflow explaining this is a known safe test key
• Document in repository README that contributors need to set up test credentials

3. Mock Client Type Casting (atoms.test.ts:50, attestation.test.ts:46)

Using as unknown as IntuitionClient bypasses TypeScript's type checking. If the real IntuitionClient interface changes, tests won't detect missing mock implementations until runtime.

Recommendation: Consider using Partial<IntuitionClient> or creating a proper test helper factory function.

4. Test Constants Reuse

Constants like TEST_MIN_DEPOSIT are defined separately in multiple test files. Consider creating a shared test constants file in __fixtures__/constants.ts to maintain consistency.

5. Main Test Context Mutation (main.test.ts:137-148, 153-165)

Tests mutate shared mockGitHubContext and restore it. If test fails or throws, context may not be restored, affecting subsequent tests.

Recommendation: Use proper setup/teardown or create a fresh context object per test to avoid side effects.

6. Configuration Files

Positive Changes:

• .gitleaks.toml: Good addition to allow mock keys in test fixtures
• .checkov.yml: Appropriate skip for CKV2_GHA_1 check with clear comment
• .prettierignore: Added claude-code-review workflow

Minor Issue: eslint.config.mjs:65 - The setting name itself warns about performance impact. Monitor if linting becomes slow as test count grows.

---

Best Practices Demonstrated

• ESM compatibility: Proper use of jest.unstable_mockModule for ES modules
• Test doubles: Excellent use of mocks vs stubs vs fakes appropriately
• Descriptive test names: Tests read like specifications
• Documentation: TESTING.md provides excellent testing guide
• DRY principle: Good reuse of mock data through fixtures
• Async handling: All async operations properly awaited

---

Minor Suggestions

1. Test file atoms.test.ts:400, 424: Tests for exact batch size boundaries are great! Consider adding a comment explaining why batch size is 10 (helps future maintainers).

2. Documentation: Consider adding a "Running Tests" section to main README.md with coverage badge.

3. Type imports: Consider using import type for type-only imports consistently (some files use it, some don't).

---

Conclusion

This is high-quality test code that significantly improves the project's reliability and maintainability. The few suggestions above are minor improvements to an already excellent implementation.

Approval Status: ✅ Approved with minor suggestions

The test suite demonstrates:

• Professional engineering practices
• Deep understanding of the codebase
• Commitment to code quality
• Excellent documentation

Great work! 🎉

---

Action Items (Optional):

• Address security comment pattern in client.test.ts
• Consider shared test constants file
• Add coverage badge to README (if not already planned)
• Document test credential setup for contributors