Lesson 14: BasicNft.test.js

[chopperttt]

I'm trying to write my own tests by looking at tests from previous lessons and this is what I came up with for the "before each":

but I don't understand why Patrick used getSigners here instead of getNamedAccounts

and why isn't there a ",deployer" at the getContract part.

Please help me understand thanks!

[pacelliv]

Hello @AnneBBB, by default hardhat provides an array of 20 accounts for local testing and you can get them with ethers.getSigners().

The reason there is a namedAccounts config in the hardhat.config file is because we are using the hardhat-deploy plugin that allows us to give a name or an alias to those accounts. The plugin also provides the getNamedAccounts helper function that allows us to fetch the accounts we named in the config, but in the end those accounts that you named are the same accounts provided by hardhat.

So, using getNamedAccounts or ethers.getSigners() does basically the same. What you need to understand is that getNamedAccounts is only accesible as long you've installed the hardhat-deploy plugin.

[pacelliv]

Sorry, I forgot about the second question.

The getContract method allows you to fetch the instance of a deployed contract by name, if you want to associate that contract to a signer then you only need to pass the address as a second argument.

The reason it makes no difference in passing the deployer or not as a second argument is that the contract was deployed by that address, is already embedded in the contract as the signer, but you should be able to do this:

const accounts = await ethers.getSigners()
const account1 = accounts[1] // remember account[0] is the deployer
basicNft = await ethers.getContract("BasicNft", account1.address) // instance of the contract with a different signer

[chopperttt]

Thank you so much for the clear explanations! It makes so much sense now.
So, to be safe, I want to clarify again, what I wrote is OK too (the first image in black background)? that it would work the same as the one in Patrick's repo?

[pacelliv]

Yes, it should. I see no syntax error in what you wrote.

[chopperttt]

@pacelliv Thanks so much