Introduce focused tests for analytics mock API accessors

[Lakes41]

Difficulty

Intermediate

Type

test-coverage, type-safety, error-handling

Background

The parser failure occurs in the analytics portion of lib/api/mock.ts, including access to MOCK_ANALYTICS_SUMMARY.resourceAccess. Analytics mock behavior is therefore a concrete area where focused tests can protect future contributors from accidentally changing return shapes.

Problem

Large mock implementations can change structurally without immediate feedback about whether individual accessors still return the expected analytics data.

Expected outcome

Cover the existing analytics mock accessors with focused tests using the repository's established test framework and conventions.

Suggested implementation

Locate the analytics accessor functions surrounding MOCK_ANALYTICS_SUMMARY and test their existing return shapes and representative values. Prefer direct unit tests of the mock API rather than rendering the entire Next.js application.

Acceptance criteria

• Analytics mock accessors currently exposed by the module have focused tests.
• resourceAccess is explicitly covered if it is exposed through the API.
• Tests assert the public shape rather than implementation-specific object identity.
• Tests use the repository's existing test framework and conventions.
• No CI/CD configuration is added.

Likely affected files/directories

• lib/api/mock.ts
• Existing test directory for API modules

[Peculiarr7]

Hi! I’m a full-stack developer with a strong blockchain background, and I’m confident I can resolve this issue quickly and effectively. I’ll deliver a clean, reliable solution with immediate attention to detail, ensuring it’s completed as soon as possible. Please assign it to me—I’m ready to get started right away.

[Bamzy123]

Hi maintainer, i have experience handling issues like this and I'll submit PR within 2 days.

[Flames4fun]

I’d be interested in taking this issue. Before changing anything, I’d first trace the analytics accessors around MOCK_ANALYTICS_SUMMARY, check exactly what is publicly exposed, and review the repository’s existing API test patterns so the solution fits the codebase rather than introducing a new testing style.

I usually evaluate a couple of implementation paths before committing to one. Here, I’d compare focused unit tests per analytics accessor against using a small shared contract/assertion helper if several accessors expose similar shapes. I’d choose whichever keeps failures the most localized and readable while matching the project’s current conventions.

I’ve done similar OSS work in Free-Way, where I added deterministic regression coverage around mocked provider responses and API behavior; that work was reviewed, approved, and merged by the maintainer. My usual workflow is to cover the expected path plus representative edge/failure cases, run the relevant and full test suites, and leave the tests/documentation clear enough that another contributor can immediately understand what contract is being protected.

For this issue I’d explicitly cover resourceAccess if it is part of the exposed API, assert public shapes and representative values rather than implementation identity, and keep the scope limited to tests with no CI changes.

I can realistically have a PR ready within 3–4 hours; if the existing test structure is straightforward, 1–2 hours is a reasonable best-case estimate.

[Caerlower]

Allow me to work on this, I can fix this.

[grantfox-oss]

🦊 GrantFox — @Flames4fun has been assigned to this issue as part of the Third Campaign campaign!

Next steps:

1. Open a Pull Request referencing this issue (e.g., Closes #391)
2. Your PR will be reviewed by the Adamantine-guild maintainers

Good luck! Track your progress on GrantFox.

[grantfox-oss]

🎉 This issue has been marked as completed on GrantFox as part of the Third Campaign campaign!

@Flames4fun's PR #395 was approved and merged by @Lakes41.

🏆 @Flames4fun: You earned 35 FoxPoints for this contribution! Your current tier: Explorer (48 total points). Track your full progress on GrantFox.

👏 Great work, @Flames4fun! Keep contributing to Adamantine-guild.