Update custom Payment to a higher number in binary codec test

[shawnxie999]

High Level Overview of Change

31 that's used in the test would be used by new transactions, causing the test to fail. We would want to use a larger number for the custom def test

Context of Change

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
• Tests (You added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
• Documentation Updates
• Release

Did you update HISTORY.md?

• Yes
• No, this change does not impact library users

Test Plan

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the signing-data-encoding.test.ts file, specifically modifying the handling of transaction types in the tests for signing blobs. The TRANSACTION_TYPES.Payment value was updated from 31 to 200, affecting the expected output in two test cases. The hexadecimal representation of the transaction type was changed from 001F to 00C8. A comment was added for clarity regarding updates to custom numbers, while error handling for invalid transaction types remains unchanged.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
packages/ripple-binary-codec/test/signing-data-encoding.test.ts	Updated TRANSACTION_TYPES.Payment from 31 to 200, modified expected output from 001F to 00C8 in two test cases, and added a comment for clarity on custom number updates.

Poem

In the code where rabbits play,
Transaction types have found their way.
From thirty-one to two hundred bright,
Hexadecimal shines with new light.
With a hop and a leap, we test and cheer,
For every change brings us near! 🐇✨

---

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>, please review it.
  • 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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @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.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

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

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

packages/ripple-binary-codec/test/signing-data-encoding.test.ts (1)

181-183: Consider reducing duplication.

The custom definitions setup is identical to the previous test case. Consider extracting this into a shared helper function.

+function createCustomPaymentDefinitions(paymentType: number): XrplDefinitions {
+  const customPaymentDefinitions = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(normalDefinitions))
+  // custom number would need to updated in case it has been used by an existing transaction type
+  customPaymentDefinitions.TRANSACTION_TYPES.Payment = paymentType
+  return new XrplDefinitions(customPaymentDefinitions)
+}

 it('can create single signing blobs with modified type', function () {
-  const customPaymentDefinitions = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(normalDefinitions))
-  // custom number would need to updated in case it has been used by an existing transaction type
-  customPaymentDefinitions.TRANSACTION_TYPES.Payment = 200
-  const newDefs = new XrplDefinitions(customPaymentDefinitions)
+  const newDefs = createCustomPaymentDefinitions(200)
   // ... rest of the test
 })

 it('can create multi signing blobs with custom definitions', function () {
-  const customPaymentDefinitions = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(normalDefinitions))
-  // custom number would need to updated in case it has been used by an existing transaction type
-  customPaymentDefinitions.TRANSACTION_TYPES.Payment = 200
-  const newDefs = new XrplDefinitions(customPaymentDefinitions)
+  const newDefs = createCustomPaymentDefinitions(200)
   // ... rest of the test
 })

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 92eb809 and 1eceaf2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/ripple-binary-codec/test/signing-data-encoding.test.ts (4 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

packages/ripple-binary-codec/test/signing-data-encoding.test.ts (3)

87-87: LGTM! Hex value is correct.

The hex value 00C8 correctly represents the decimal value 200.

---

194-194: LGTM! Hex value is consistent.

The hex value 00C8 is consistent with the previous test case.

---

76-78: LGTM! Verify transaction type availability.

The change from 31 to 200 and the added comment improve maintainability. The new value should be safe from conflicts with existing transaction types.

Let's verify that 200 isn't used by any existing transaction type: