chore(ante): refactor ante tests to use expected errors

[TropicalDog17]

Description

closes: #6301

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against the correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md).
• Linked to GitHub issue with discussion and accepted design, OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards and Go style guide.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/).
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Provide a conventional commit message to follow the repository standards.
• Include a descriptive changelog entry when appropriate. This may be left to the discretion of the PR reviewers. (e.g. chores should be omitted from changelog)
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
• Review SonarCloud Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Improved error handling in test cases to provide more explicit error messages.
  • Adjusted various test scenarios for better accuracy in reflecting success or failure conditions.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in ante_test.go involve updating the TestAnteDecorator function to use expError error for explicit error handling, replacing the previous expPass boolean. This adjustment allows for more specific error checks based on different conditions in the test cases.

Changes

Files/Modules	Change Summary
modules/core/ante/ante_test.go	Modified TestAnteDecorator to utilize expError error instead of expPass bool for improved error handling. Test cases were adjusted accordingly.
...	Added an import statement for github.com/cosmos/btcutil/bech32 to manage specific error scenarios.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective (Issue #)	Addressed	Explanation
Refactor ante tests to use expected errors (#6301)	✅

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review Details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3da4830 and 3012302.

Files selected for processing (1)

• modules/core/ante/ante_test.go (15 hunks)

Additional Context Used

Path-based Instructions (1)

modules/core/ante/ante_test.go (2)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.

---

Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

Additional comments not posted (22)

modules/core/ante/ante_test.go (22)

9-9: Ensure the new import github.com/cosmos/btcutil/bech32 is necessary and used correctly in the code.

---

184-184: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

192-192: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

200-200: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

208-208: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

216-216: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

245-245: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

275-275: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

305-305: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

312-312: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

319-319: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

331-331: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

346-346: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

353-353: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

378-378: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

391-391: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

402-402: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

413-413: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

424-424: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

449-449: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

464-464: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

---

488-488: Refactor the test case to use expError instead of expPass.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review Details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3012302 and 6f3930e.

Files selected for processing (1)

• modules/core/ante/ante_test.go (15 hunks)

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• modules/core/ante/ante_test.go

[DimitrisJim]

lgtm, thanks for this, 🌴 dog!

[crodriguezvega]

Thanks, @TropicalDog17!