Test-suite depth

This section evaluates the test suite's quality and completeness across various dimensions, including coverage adequacy, edge case handling, invariant validation and real-world usage simulation.

Is the test coverage adequate?

The current test suite primarily focuses on isolated, single-step operations and basic happy-path flows, such as creating a pool, opening a position, adding liquidity, and removing liquidity. It also verifies that the initial SQRT price falls within the expected range.

However, while these tests cover fundamental functionality, they lack deeper integration and sequential operation testing. More comprehensive coverage of multi-step interactions and complex paths — such as consecutive swaps, liquidity management over time, and protocol-level fee collection — would improve the overall test robustness.

Are edge cases and negative scenarios covered in tests?

There are negative case tests, such as

• Attempting to remove liquidity without first adding any, which fails as expected

• Trying to remove zero liquidity, which also fails due to the pool’s internal logic — specifically, an attempt to remove from a nonexistent tick raises ErrTickNotFound

Basic edge-case checks for liquidity management are present, but additional negative scenario testing across other core functionalities (e.g., swaps, fee distribution, slippage handling) would strengthen coverage.

What assumptions or invariants does the test suite validate?

There are several:

• A newly created pool has the expected current_sqrt_price, tick_spacing, and zero liquidity.

• Liquidity removal is only possible if liquidity was previously added.

• A position must contain liquidity; otherwise, removal attempts fail.

Does the test suite simulate real-world usage? (i.e., integration vs. unit testing)

The tests are primarily unit tests, each focusing on a single action or a minimal sequence of steps (e.g., create pool → open position → add liquidity → remove liquidity). There is a lack of broader integration tests that simulate real-world interactions over time, such as a sequence of swaps, liquidity shifts, and dynamic fee collection.

Adding tests that cover multiple operations in sequence — such as swapping followed by liquidity adjustments and protocol-fee interactions — would provide better insights into how the system behaves under realistic conditions.

Are fuzz tests in place? Would it make sense to add some?

No fuzz tests are present in the codebase. Given the number of parameters that can vary (e.g., swap amounts, tick movements, fee structures, partial liquidity additions), introducing fuzz testing could help uncover edge cases and unexpected behaviors that are difficult to anticipate through traditional test cases.