chore: inverse unit tests for CalcInAmtGivenOut and CalcOutAmtGivenIn with zero swap fee

[p0mvn]

Closes: #XXX

Description

Trying to investigate #1196 by incrementally adding more unit tests

These tests do not allow us to conclude anything with regards to #1196 yet. The tests added so far have a swap fee of 0. I'm planning to continue adding unit tests with a non-zero swap fee. Also, test other functionality and methods that are being called in ExitSwapShareAmountIn and JoinSwapExactAmountIn

---

For contributor use:

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1254 (b8560e2) into main (b6d342a) will decrease coverage by 0.63%.
The diff coverage is 9.51%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1254      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   20.90%   20.26%   -0.64%     
==========================================
  Files         196      203       +7     
  Lines       25425    26824    +1399     
==========================================
+ Hits         5316     5437     +121     
- Misses      19118    20377    +1259     
- Partials      991     1010      +19     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/claim/abci.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/client/cli/query.go	34.45% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/client/cli/tx.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/handler.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/claim.go	64.33% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/grpc_query.go	2.50% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/hooks.go	28.00% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/keeper.go	87.50% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/keeper/params.go	81.81% <ø> (ø)
x/claim/module.go	58.06% <ø> (ø)
... and 108 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4e12c8e...b8560e2. Read the comment docs.

[alexanderbez]

So what did we find out here? There's a test case commented out in TestJoinSwapExactAmountInConsistency.

[p0mvn]

So what did we find out here? There's a test case commented out in TestJoinSwapExactAmountInConsistency.

Nothing yet, I'm planning to continue increasing tests / coverage for all methods called within JoinSwapExactAmountIn.

Currently, it's hard to determine where exactly the error is happening because we are missing unit tests for each of the methods called byJoinSwapExactAmountIn. By increasing the number of unit tests for each of the called methods, we should make it more likely to find the problem

[mattverse]

Hrmm interesting. So I think these test cases tell us that running CalcInAmtGivenOut and CalcOutAmtGiven straight away returns the correct value we expect, and that the problem is coming from other steps?

[p0mvn]

Hrmm interesting. So I think these test cases tell us that running CalcInAmtGivenOut and CalcOutAmtGiven straight away returns the correct value we expect, and that the problem is coming from other steps?

It's unclear yet. I have tested with 0 swap fees so far. I'm planning to add the tests with a non-zero swap fee in a separate PR

[mattverse]

Sounds great! Can we address that this is a test for zero fee either in the comment or in the test case name?

[alexanderbez]

Can we leave this PR in Draft mode to indicate that it's still being worked on?

[p0mvn]

Sounds great! Can we address that this is a test for zero fee either in the comment or in the test case name?

Done! I also created an issue to continue with the tests with a non-zero swap fee: #1288

@alexanderbez this is ready for review. I'm trying to work on this in small parts / PRs to make it easier to review

[alexanderbez]

🌮