fix(test): import chai expect in governance helper for fail path

[GarmashAlex]

The helper test/helpers/governance.js calls expect.fail(...) in proposalStatesToBitMap() on invalid inputs but didn’t import expect. While current tests don’t execute this branch, leaving it undefined would surface as a ReferenceError instead of a clear assertion failure when hit. Importing const { expect } = require('chai'); aligns the helper with its usage and guarantees proper failure semantics.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: c7ac125

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The change adds an import statement for the expect assertion library from chai to a test helper file. This enables the use of assertion methods like expect.fail within the test helper module. No modifications to logic, control flow, or public exports were made.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a chai expect import to the governance test helper for the fail path assertion.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description provides relevant context about why the import is needed and what problem it solves in the test helper.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

• Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
• Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
• Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
   | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
   Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

test/helpers/governance.js (1)

191-212: Consider adding test coverage for the error path.

The validation logic at line 200 that calls expect.fail() for out-of-bounds states is currently untested. Consider adding a test case that exercises this branch to verify the error message and behavior.

Would you like me to generate a test case for the invalid state validation?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0de8004 and c7ac125.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/helpers/governance.js (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

test/helpers/governance.js (3)

test/governance/Governor.test.js (8)

• require (1-1)
• require (2-2)
• require (3-3)
• require (5-5)
• require (6-6)
• require (7-7)
• require (10-10)
• require (11-11)

test/utils/introspection/SupportsInterface.behavior.js (2)

• require (1-1)
• require (2-2)

test/governance/extensions/GovernorWithParams.test.js (6)

• require (1-1)
• require (2-2)
• require (3-3)
• require (5-5)
• require (6-6)
• require (7-7)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (9)

• GitHub Check: tests-upgradeable
• GitHub Check: tests-foundry
• GitHub Check: coverage
• GitHub Check: halmos
• GitHub Check: slither
• GitHub Check: tests
• GitHub Check: Redirect rules - solidity-contracts
• GitHub Check: Header rules - solidity-contracts
• GitHub Check: Pages changed - solidity-contracts

🔇 Additional comments (1)

test/helpers/governance.js (1)

5-5: LGTM! Essential fix for missing dependency.

The import correctly addresses the ReferenceError that would occur when expect.fail() is called at line 200. The pattern matches other test files in the codebase.