@lombard.finance/sdk 4.0.0 → 4.1.2

package/src/__tests__/unit/btc/BtcDepositStatusTransition.test.ts

@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Test to verify BTC Deposit status transitions
- * 
- * Issue: When resuming with existing deposit address but expired fee auth,
- * status should go directly to NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION, not ADDRESS_READY first.
- */
-
-import { describe, expect, it, vi } from 'vitest';
-
-import { BtcActionStatus } from '../../../chains/btc/actions/deposit/types';
-
-describe('BTC Deposit Status Transition Issue', () => {
-  describe('Resume with expired fee auth', () => {
-    it('should document the expected status flow', () => {
-      // Expected flow when resuming with existing deposit but expired fee auth:
-      // 1. IDLE (initial)
-      // 2. prepare() called
-      // 3. resumeFromExistingDeposit() returns true (deposit address exists)
-      // 4. restoreFeeSignature() returns null (expired)
-      // 5. Status should go directly to NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-      // 
-      // WRONG flow (the bug):
-      // 1. IDLE
-      // 2. ADDRESS_READY <-- This should NOT happen!
-      // 3. NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-      
-      const expectedFlow = [
-        BtcActionStatus.IDLE,
-        BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION, // Direct transition, no ADDRESS_READY
-      ];
-      
-      expect(expectedFlow).not.toContain(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-    });
-
-    it('should verify the status transition order when fee auth is expired', async () => {
-      // Create a mock context
-      const statusChanges: string[] = [];
-      
-      const mockEmitStatusChange = (status: string) => {
-        statusChanges.push(status);
-      };
-
-      // Simulate the prepare() flow:
-      // 1. Check for existing deposit
-      const hasExistingDeposit = true; // Simulating found deposit
-      
-      // 2. If exists, check fee auth
-      const feeAuthConfig = {
-        restoreFeeSignature: async (): Promise<{ hasSignature: boolean } | null> => null, // Expired/missing
-        getMintingFee: async () => '0.00001',
-      };
-      
-      if (hasExistingDeposit) {
-        if (feeAuthConfig) {
-          const stored = await feeAuthConfig.restoreFeeSignature();
-          
-          if (!stored?.hasSignature) {
-            // This is the correct path - go directly to NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-            mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION);
-            // Should return here, not continue to ADDRESS_READY
-          } else {
-            mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-          }
-        } else {
-          mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-        }
-      }
-      
-      // Verify: ADDRESS_READY should NOT be in the status changes
-      expect(statusChanges).toEqual([BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION]);
-      expect(statusChanges).not.toContain(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-    });
-
-    it('should verify ADDRESS_READY comes AFTER valid fee auth check', async () => {
-      const statusChanges: string[] = [];
-      
-      const mockEmitStatusChange = (status: string) => {
-        statusChanges.push(status);
-      };
-
-      // Simulate the prepare() flow with VALID fee auth:
-      const hasExistingDeposit = true;
-      
-      const feeAuthConfig = {
-        restoreFeeSignature: async () => ({ 
-          hasSignature: true, // Valid signature exists
-          signature: '0x123',
-          typedData: '{}',
-        }),
-        getMintingFee: async () => '0.00001',
-      };
-      
-      if (hasExistingDeposit) {
-        if (feeAuthConfig) {
-          const stored = await feeAuthConfig.restoreFeeSignature();
-          
-          if (!stored?.hasSignature) {
-            mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION);
-          } else {
-            // Valid fee auth - now ADDRESS_READY is appropriate
-            mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-          }
-        } else {
-          mockEmitStatusChange(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-        }
-      }
-      
-      // Verify: ADDRESS_READY should be the status
-      expect(statusChanges).toEqual([BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY]);
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Verify the actual code structure', () => {
-    it('should verify no status is set before fee auth check in resume flow', () => {
-      // This test documents what the code SHOULD do:
-      // In the resume flow (hasExistingDeposit = true):
-      // 1. Get fee auth config
-      // 2. Call restoreFeeSignature
-      // 3. Based on result, set status to EITHER:
-      //    - NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION (if fee auth expired/missing)
-      //    - ADDRESS_READY (if fee auth valid or not required)
-      //
-      // The key point: no status should be emitted BEFORE the fee auth check completes
-      
-      // This is a documentation test - the actual logic is tested above
-      expect(true).toBe(true);
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Debug: trace potential race conditions', () => {
-    it('should verify emitInitialProgress does not emit status-change', () => {
-      // emitInitialProgress() calls emitProgress() which emits 'progress' event
-      // It should NOT emit 'status-change' event
-      // The status-change is emitted by updateStatus()
-      
-      // This is to ensure no hidden status emissions
-      expect(true).toBe(true);
-    });
-
-    it('BUG REPRODUCTION: multiple status updates observed in logs', () => {
-      /**
-       * From the user's logs, we see:
-       * 
-       * 12:24:51  SDK_EVENT  {"eventType":"status-change","data":"address_ready...
-       * 12:24:51  STATUS_CHANGE  {"status":"address_ready"}
-       * 12:24:52  SDK_EVENT  {"eventType":"status-change","data":"needs_fee_aut...
-       * 12:24:52  STATUS_CHANGE  {"status":"needs_fee_authorization"}
-       * 
-       * This suggests:
-       * 1. At 12:24:51: status is set to ADDRESS_READY
-       * 2. At 12:24:52: status is set to NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-       * 
-       * The 1-second gap between them suggests an async operation is happening
-       * between the two status updates.
-       * 
-       * HYPOTHESIS: The restoreFeeSignature call is returning { hasSignature: true }
-       * initially (cached/optimistic), then after a full check it determines
-       * the signature is actually expired/invalid.
-       * 
-       * OR: There's something in the deposit config that's causing a second check.
-       */
-      
-      // This test documents the observed behavior
-      expect(true).toBe(true);
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Investigate restoreFeeSignature behavior', () => {
-    it('should only call restoreFeeSignature once per prepare', async () => {
-      let callCount = 0;
-      
-      const feeAuthConfig = {
-        restoreFeeSignature: vi.fn(async (): Promise<{ hasSignature: boolean } | null> => {
-          callCount++;
-          // Simulate: first call returns valid, but it should only be called once
-          return null; // Expired
-        }),
-        getMintingFee: vi.fn(async () => '0.00001'),
-      };
-
-      // Simulate prepare flow
-      const hasExistingDeposit = true;
-      
-      if (hasExistingDeposit && feeAuthConfig) {
-        const stored = await feeAuthConfig.restoreFeeSignature();
-        if (!stored?.hasSignature) {
-          // Should go to NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-        }
-      }
-      
-      // Verify: only called once
-      expect(callCount).toBe(1);
-      expect(feeAuthConfig.restoreFeeSignature).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
-    });
-
-    it('should not emit ADDRESS_READY if restoreFeeSignature returns null', async () => {
-      const statusChanges: string[] = [];
-      
-      // This simulates what SHOULD happen:
-      // If restoreFeeSignature returns null, we should ONLY emit NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION
-      
-      const feeAuthConfig = {
-        restoreFeeSignature: async (): Promise<{ hasSignature: boolean } | null> => null,
-        getMintingFee: async () => '0.00001',
-      };
-      
-      // The key: we should never reach the ADDRESS_READY line
-      const stored = await feeAuthConfig.restoreFeeSignature();
-      
-      if (!stored?.hasSignature) {
-        statusChanges.push(BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION);
-        // CRITICAL: return here, don't fall through
-      } else {
-        statusChanges.push(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-      }
-      
-      expect(statusChanges).toEqual([BtcActionStatus.NEEDS_FEE_AUTHORIZATION]);
-      expect(statusChanges).not.toContain(BtcActionStatus.ADDRESS_READY);
-    });
-  });
-});

package/src/__tests__/unit/btc/BtcStakeAndDeploy.test.ts

@@ -1,194 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * BTC Stake And Deploy Action Unit Tests
- *
- * Tests the BTC → LBTC → DeFi vault flow including:
- * - Parameter validation
- * - Stake and bake signature handling
- * - Protocol/vault selection
- *
- * @module __tests__/unit/btc/BtcStakeAndDeploy.test.ts
- */
-
-import { describe, expect, it, vi } from 'vitest';
-
-import { AssetId, Chain } from '../../../core';
-import { LombardError, ValidationErrorCode } from '../../../shared/errors';
-
-describe('BtcStakeAndDeploy Interface', () => {
-  describe('BtcStakeAndDeployParams', () => {
-    it('should require LBTC as output asset', () => {
-      const params = {
-        assetOut: AssetId.LBTC,
-        destChain: Chain.ETHEREUM,
-        protocol: 'veda',
-        vault: 'LBTC',
-      };
-
-      expect(params.assetOut).toBe(AssetId.LBTC);
-    });
-
-    it('should require protocol selection', () => {
-      const params = {
-        assetOut: AssetId.LBTC,
-        destChain: Chain.ETHEREUM,
-        protocol: 'veda',
-        vault: 'LBTC',
-      };
-
-      expect(params.protocol).toBe('veda');
-    });
-
-    it('should require vault selection', () => {
-      const params = {
-        assetOut: AssetId.LBTC,
-        destChain: Chain.ETHEREUM,
-        protocol: 'veda',
-        vault: 'LBTC',
-      };
-
-      expect(params.vault).toBe('LBTC');
-    });
-
-    it('should support different protocols', () => {
-      const protocols = ['corn-silo', 'euler-lbtc', 'aave'];
-      
-      protocols.forEach(protocol => {
-        expect(typeof protocol).toBe('string');
-      });
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('BtcStakeAndDeployPrepareParams', () => {
-    it('should accept valid prepare parameters', () => {
-      const params = {
-        amount: '0.1',
-        recipient: '0x742d35Cc6634C0532925a3b844Bc9e7595f0bEb0',
-      };
-
-      expect(params.amount).toBe('0.1');
-      expect(params.recipient).toBeDefined();
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Status Transitions', () => {
-    it('should define all required status values', () => {
-      const statuses = [
-        'idle',
-        'needs_stake_and_bake_signature',
-        'ready',
-        'address_ready',
-      ];
-
-      statuses.forEach(status => {
-        expect(typeof status).toBe('string');
-      });
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Method Signatures', () => {
-    it('should define prepare method', () => {
-      type PrepareMethod = (params: { amount: string; recipient: string }) => Promise<void>;
-      const testType: PrepareMethod = async () => {};
-      expect(testType).toBeDefined();
-    });
-
-    it('should define signStakeAndBake method', () => {
-      type SignMethod = () => Promise<void>;
-      const testType: SignMethod = async () => {};
-      expect(testType).toBeDefined();
-    });
-
-    it('should define generateDepositAddress method', () => {
-      type GenerateAddressMethod = () => Promise<string>;
-      const testType: GenerateAddressMethod = async () => 'bc1qexample';
-      expect(testType).toBeDefined();
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Stake And Bake Signature', () => {
-    it('should require EIP-712 signature for vault deployment', () => {
-      // The signature authorizes:
-      // 1. Minting LBTC to user's address
-      // 2. Deploying LBTC to specified vault
-      const signatureComponents = [
-        'recipient address',
-        'deposit amount',
-        'vault address',
-        'protocol',
-      ];
-
-      expect(signatureComponents.length).toBe(4);
-    });
-
-    it('should handle existing signature resume (Bug #7)', () => {
-      // If user already has a stake-and-bake signature, should resume
-      const existingSignature = {
-        signature: '0xexistingsig',
-        expirationDate: '2025-01-01',
-        depositAmount: '0.1',
-      };
-
-      expect(existingSignature.signature).toBeDefined();
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Error Handling', () => {
-    it('should reject BTCb as output asset', () => {
-      const error = new LombardError(
-        ValidationErrorCode.INVALID_ASSET,
-        `Asset BTCb is not supported for stake and deploy. Use BtcDepositAndDeploy instead.`,
-      );
-
-      expect(error.code).toBe(ValidationErrorCode.INVALID_ASSET);
-    });
-
-    it('should reject unsupported protocols', () => {
-      const error = new LombardError(
-        ValidationErrorCode.INVALID_PARAMETER,
-        `Protocol invalid-protocol is not supported.`,
-      );
-
-      expect(error.code).toBe(ValidationErrorCode.INVALID_PARAMETER);
-    });
-
-    it('should handle signature already exists error (Bug #7)', () => {
-      const errorMessage = 'stake and bake signature already exists';
-      
-      const isExistingSignatureError = (message: string): boolean => {
-        return message.toLowerCase().includes('signature already exists');
-      };
-
-      expect(isExistingSignatureError(errorMessage)).toBe(true);
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Event Emissions', () => {
-    it('should emit progress events', () => {
-      const handler = vi.fn((progress: { status: string; steps?: Record<string, string> }) => {
-        expect(progress.status).toBeDefined();
-      });
-
-      handler({
-        status: 'address_ready',
-        steps: { created: 'complete', deploying: 'idle' },
-      });
-
-      expect(handler).toHaveBeenCalledOnce();
-    });
-  });
-
-  describe('Public Properties', () => {
-    it('should expose protocol property', () => {
-      type HasProtocol = { readonly protocol: string };
-      const obj: HasProtocol = { protocol: 'corn-silo' };
-      expect(obj.protocol).toBe('corn-silo');
-    });
-
-    it('should expose vault property', () => {
-      type HasVault = { readonly vault: string };
-      const obj: HasVault = { vault: 'LBTC' };
-      expect(obj.vault).toBe('LBTC');
-    });
-  });
-});
-