Expand Test Coverage

[aljones15]

--------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-------------------|
File                            |  % Stmts | % Branch |  % Funcs |  % Lines | Uncovered Line #s |
--------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-------------------|
All files                       |     79.9 |    65.77 |    85.57 |    79.64 |                   |
 lib                            |    74.09 |    62.31 |    78.72 |    73.41 |                   |
  ProofSet.js                   |    91.74 |    76.47 |    94.74 |     91.3 |... 29,238,330,335 |
  constants.js                  |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  contexts.js                   |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  documentLoader.js             |    90.91 |      100 |    66.67 |    90.91 |                66 |
  env.js                        |      100 |    66.67 |      100 |      100 |                 9 |
  expansionMap.js               |    66.67 |       50 |      100 |    66.67 |                 9 |
  jsonld-signatures.js          |    64.29 |    58.33 |      100 |    64.29 |... 41,42,43,46,47 |
  purposes.js                   |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  suites.js                     |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  util.js                       |    49.48 |     37.5 |    63.64 |    48.96 |... 23,225,227,228 |
 lib/purposes                   |    88.89 |    72.86 |      100 |    88.89 |                   |
  AssertionProofPurpose.js      |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  AuthenticationProofPurpose.js |    90.48 |    76.47 |      100 |    90.48 |             15,18 |
  ControllerProofPurpose.js     |    86.84 |    64.29 |      100 |    86.84 |    29,54,56,63,65 |
  ProofPurpose.js               |    86.96 |       75 |      100 |    86.96 |          17,21,27 |
  PublicKeyProofPurpose.js      |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
 lib/suites                     |    82.95 |    65.44 |    88.89 |    82.88 |                   |
  EcdsaKoblitzSignature2016.js  |     91.3 |    57.14 |      100 |     91.3 |             23,45 |
  Ed25519Signature2018.js       |      100 |      100 |      100 |      100 |                   |
  GraphSignature2012.js         |     87.5 |    66.67 |      100 |     87.5 |             48,53 |
  JwsLinkedDataSignature.js     |    83.33 |    70.45 |      100 |    83.33 |... 26,133,169,182 |
  LinkedDataProof.js            |    57.14 |    33.33 |       50 |    57.14 |           9,25,38 |
  LinkedDataSignature.js        |    84.93 |    61.54 |       80 |    84.93 |... 58,263,279,293 |
  LinkedDataSignature2015.js    |    76.81 |    68.75 |      100 |    76.47 |... 65,166,167,171 |
  RsaSignature2018.js           |      100 |        0 |      100 |      100 |                32 |
--------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-------------------|

JsonLD Signatures is a pretty important part of the current tech stack.

Currently test coverage is hovering around 65~79% with all of those tests failing in an incoming branch from @mattcollier This issue is to layout what testing remains as instanbul shows surprisingly large amounts of the library need code coverage i.e. that 79% is because there are a lot of modules with 100% coverage such as PublicKeyProofPurpose, but then LinkedDataProof stands at about 50% depending on the metric used.

[aljones15]

Suggested new tests:

should sign and verify with a controller string passed to purpose
should sign and verify with a controller object passed to purpose
should sign and verify without a controller passed to purpose using a key with a controller string
should sign and verify without a controller passed to purpose using a key with a controller object

Ok, that's fine. Note that adding those will just mean renaming two of the existing ones and adding two more.

TODO:

• rename should sign and verify to include which variant of controller is being tested

[davidlehn]

Update: When the suites were split out into their own packages the local coverage testing here became very very low. Some sort of "identity" suite, or a similar concept, should be developed here for the purposes of testing and coverage. It may be able to be derived from one of the other suites. The code here does get indirectly tested in the other suites, but it's difficult to make changes here alone without any tests.