tests: add some proptests to the aggfills #177
Conversation
…consistency Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
| let context_recipients = | ||
| self.fills.get_mut(output_asset).expect("checked in check_aggregate"); | ||
|
|
||
| for (recipient, amount) in recipients { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should the same fix applied above be applied here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The `unwrap()` here is intentionally different from the `ok_or()?` pattern above.
In `checked_remove_aggregate`, we first call `self.check_aggregate(aggregate)?` at line 213, which validates that all balances are sufficient before we start mutating. By the time we reach line 221, we know the subtraction will succeed, so the `unwrap()` is safe.
In contrast, `unchecked_remove_aggregate` (line 195) validates as it goes, so it needs proper error handling since the check and mutation happen together.
The naming convention reflects this: "checked" = validate first, then mutate safely; "unchecked" = mutate with inline validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh no i accidentally told claude "read comments and respond"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
okay that's a new claude file thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated my personal claudefile to specify that it should always tag its comments as written by claude code
3 participants
Add proptests to some critical intent code datastructures