Lesson-14 basicNft test Difference

[TimeKeyRoll]

In Patrick repo it is mentioned like :

beforeEach(async () => {
              accounts = await ethers.getSigners()
              deployer = accounts[0]
              await deployments.fixture(["basicnft"])
              basicNft = await ethers.getContract("BasicNft")
          })

AND I am trying to write beforeEach like he showed us in previous videos

beforeEach(async function () {
              deployer = (await getNamedAccounts()).deployer
              await deployments.fixture(["all"])
              basicNFT = await ethers.getContract("basicNft", deployer)
          })

Ofcourse both beforeEach are different. Why he is using this one and I see hes here getting 0 account as well. Can anyone help me with the Difference?

[krakxn]

The functionality of both of them is the same, with the only difference being the way it is achieved.

To keep this as simple as possible, think of await ethers.getSigners() as "getting" all the "signers" or connected accounts (see the similarity with namedAccounts); we store this (i.e. the signers, or similar to namedAccounts) in the variable accounts.

The above functionality is like getNamedAccounts

So, accounts[0] means we are extracting the first account (which is deployer) from the signers (i.e. namedAccounts)

Now, the above serves as the accounts.deployer part of the old approach.

So, overall

accounts = await ethers.getSigners()
              deployer = accounts[0]

is essentially the same as

accounts = getNamedAccounts()
deployer = accounts[0] // or accounts.deployer

[TimeKeyRoll]

Is the repo updated with the changes? Let me know if it is indeed the updated one.
(I am facing the same errors which I faced at that time--so, must be the same repo)
i
I have Updated it. But did you check the 3 snippet i have posted? could be this reason Only?

Okay, I will clone again then.

And which snippets?

I will tag you in new chat section. hold on

[krakxn]

It is fixed again.

Do you want me to make a PR? Also again, feel free to ask questions regarding the changes rather than outright denying it.

[krakxn]

And now I see this new error. :/

Could we talk about it first @krakxn

I did not face any such errors; either way, I fixed all the errors which I did face now.

[TimeKeyRoll]

And now I see this new error. :/

Could we talk about it first @krakxn

I did not face any such errors; either way, I fixed all the errors which I did face now.

I mean it is required for me to fix this error before i move further. Because if its not gonna compile then there is no way it works locally. things need to work locally.So what do you think is causing this error and how do we fix it?

[krakxn]

And now I see this new error. :/

Could we talk about it first @krakxn

I did not face any such errors; either way, I fixed all the errors which I did face now.

I mean it is required for me to fix this error before i move further. Because if its not gonna compile then there is no way it works locally. things need to work locally.So what do you think is causing this error and how do we fix it?

@TimeKeyRoll Yes, I referred to this in the other thread. Your repo--which I cloned--works perfectly for me; so, we need to incorporate the changes (which also is outlined in the other thread). Feel free to ask questions about the changes there.

[TimeKeyRoll]

@othaime-en I have a question.
There are two type of beforeEach in my post. one comes from Patrick's repo and another i am trying to write in my tests(like Patrick showed us in other videos).
When i run Patrick's beforeEach it works all good.
When i run my beforeEach it has an ERROR : ``basicNft is not a contract.

So it means everything is working good but there is an issue with the code which I am trying to write. What do you think? What could be wrong here?

@alymurtazamemon if you have any Opinion or anything to share please do so.

[TimeKeyRoll]

@othaime-en It fixed it. AND back to the original error now.
The error you see in the screen shot is there. what would be right way to fix it ?
Repo- https://github.com/TimeKeyRoll/hardhat-nft-fcc.git

[TimeKeyRoll]

@othaime-en that's all okay. :) No its there. You still could help tho lol and there is this error which I am mentioning.
@krakxn Yeah but after making the manual change locally(from your PR)it got broke and the new error which we talked last night is still there. which is mentioned below
ERROR : Error HH702: Invalid artifact path D:\HARDHAT-NFT-FCC\artifacts\contracts\BasicNft.sol\BasicNft.json, its correct case-sensitive path is D:\HARDHAT-NFT-FCC\artifacts\contracts\basicNft.sol\BasicNft.json

Ah..I see.

(I replied in the other chat to keep this one organized)

AND i could not even find. lol but glad it fixed it. Now back to the original error.

[othaime-en]

Hey @TimeKeyRoll looking at your repo, in the contract code. You've named your contract contract BasicNft is ERC721 { and from this error, I see you are trying to get a contract named basicNft which obviously would result to an error. Try and get BasicNft instead of basicNft.
Tell me if this will fix in your issue.
Line 18 of your basicNft.test.js file should be basicNft = await ethers.getContract("BasicNft")

[TimeKeyRoll]

@othaime-en YEs. it been changed and issue is there.
I will make a new repo since this repo got some issues with artifacts and it keeps on coming.
I will tag you there. lets close the chat here.
Appreciated

[othaime-en]

Okay good Idea.

[alymurtazamemon]

@TimeKeyRoll Here you make sure the spelling of BasicNFT contract basicNFT = await ethers.getContract("basicNft", deployer)

is it similar to your contract name?

[TimeKeyRoll]

Yes! I have checked it a couple of times. So I don't miss anything lol

[alymurtazamemon]

@TimeKeyRoll But your repo says that you contract name is this BasicNft

replace it here;

basicNFT = await ethers.getContract("BasicNft", deployer)

[TimeKeyRoll]

The error was not copied which I have posted above. It was hand written. So please don't get confuse. Or sorry to make you confuse.

[krakxn]

@alymurtazamemon Go through the changes in my PR, implementing them should fix it (inclusive of the above one as well).

Make a new PR since the OP does not want to merge mine.

[TimeKeyRoll]

It's not about 'your' VS 'others' PR. It's about fixing the code while knowing what went wrong. Since I really don't know until now what was the error but changing my 'package json' dint help me. Anyway thanks for the time.

[TimeKeyRoll]

@krakxn It is getting confusing right there. let's fix it here.

[krakxn]

@TimeKeyRoll Eh.. this is getting too complicated unnecessarily with the PRs.

For simplicity, do you mind creating a new repo (with the new error, and not the one already solved)? I will look into it.

[TimeKeyRoll]

Okay let's end this chat here. I know this is getting complicated. I will create a new repo and will tag you with the error.

[TimeKeyRoll]

@othaime-en do you have anything to share before I love to new repo?

[TimeKeyRoll]

*move

[othaime-en]

Hey @TimeKeyRoll looking at the repo and this thread, It is abit confusing to know the final state of your error. Concerning the naming error, it is advisable as @krakxn pointed out, to stick to common naming conventions e.g. BasicNft.sol. At first I saw there was a disparity in the filename and the contract name. One was basicNft the other was BasicNft I hope you changed that.
To make it easy for you and all the people trying to help you here, it would be good if you open a new repo and start a new discussion with the main error there. Tag me there I'll help if I can.