chore: explorer fee-based tokens qa

[raul-oliveira]

Acceptance Criteria

• add new itens for QA related to fee-based tokens

Security Checklist

• Make sure you do not include new dependencies in the project unless strictly necessary and do not include dev-dependencies as production ones. More dependencies increase the possibility of one of them being hijacked and affecting us.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Documentation

• Updated quality assurance documentation to comprehensively cover fee-based token creation scenarios, including new verification checks for token information sections and fee payment details.
• Expanded test coverage to verify proper sorting of the fee model column in token listings.
• Enhanced help documentation to include fee model information alongside existing token operation explanations.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

QA.md was updated to document testing procedures for fee-based token features. Changes include adding a fee-based token creation transaction reference, expanding the Tokens List column assertion to include "Fee model," adding transaction detail verification checks for token creation sections and fee-paying rows, and extending the token details help-icon documentation to explain the fee model functionality.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
QA Checklist Documentation QA.md	Added fee-based token creation transaction reference to Testnet References; expanded Tokens List column-ordering assertion to include "Fee model" as a sortable column; added transaction details checks for token information section and paid fee rows; extended token details help-icon expectations to include fee model explanation.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• feat: adds fee model to the token list table #477: Implements the Fee Model column, sorting, and tooltip in TokenRow/TokensTable components that this QA checklist documents and verifies.

Suggested reviewers

• r4mmer
• pedroferreira1

Poem

🐰 A checklist hops through fee-based lands,
Tokens sorted by careful hands,
Fee models now shine in the light,
QA hopping through day and night! 🌙

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title refers to a QA update for fee-based tokens, which matches the changeset that adds QA checklist items for fee-based token scenarios.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch raul-oliveira/chore/fee-qa

📝 Coding Plan

• Generate coding plan for human review comments

---

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]

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

QA.md (2)

57-57: Fix capitalization to match UI and list pattern.

"Fee model" should be "Fee Model" (capital M) to:

• Match the actual UI column header shown in the code
• Maintain consistency with the title case pattern used for other columns in the list (Name, Symbol, Created At)

📝 Proposed fix

-1. Verify that some columns allow ordering by clicking on their header: Name, Symbol, Fee model, and Created At. 
+1. Verify that some columns allow ordering by clicking on their header: Name, Symbol, Fee Model, and Created At. 

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@QA.md` at line 57, Update the checklist string that currently reads "Fee
model" to "Fee Model" so the capitalization matches the UI and the title-case
pattern used by the other column names ("Name", "Symbol", "Created At"); locate
and replace the exact text "Fee model" in the QA checklist entry to "Fee Model".

---

116-117: Provide more specific validation criteria.

These checks are vague compared to the previous conditional validations (lines 111-115). Consider specifying what exactly to validate about the "token information section" and "paid fee row" to ensure consistent and thorough QA testing.

Additionally, line 116 uses "Create Token transaction" while line 111 uses "token creation tx" — consider using consistent terminology throughout.

📋 Example of more specific criteria

-1. If this is a Create Token transaction, check for the token information section.
-1. If this is a transaction that uses a fee-based token, check for the paid fee row which should contain all the tokens and amounts used to pay fees in this tx.
+1. If this is a token creation tx, validate that:
+   1. There is a "Token Information" section containing [specify expected fields]
+1. If this is a transaction that uses a fee-based token, validate that:
+   1. There is a "Paid Fee" row displaying all fee-paying token UIDs and their corresponding amounts

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@QA.md` around lines 116 - 117, Change the vague checks into concrete
validation steps and standardize terminology: replace "Create Token transaction"
and "token creation tx" with a single phrase like "token creation transaction";
for "token information section" require checking presence and correctness of
fields (token name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, initialOwner/address, tokenId
if applicable, and any metadata URI) and validate value formats (non-empty
strings, decimals integer >=0, totalSupply numeric >0); for "paid fee row"
require checking that a paid-fee entry exists when a fee-based token is used,
and validate it lists each token identifier and amount used (tokenId/symbol,
amount numeric >0), the fee payer address, currency unit, and that the summed
amounts match the transaction fee charged.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@QA.md`:
- Line 57: Update the checklist string that currently reads "Fee model" to "Fee
Model" so the capitalization matches the UI and the title-case pattern used by
the other column names ("Name", "Symbol", "Created At"); locate and replace the
exact text "Fee model" in the QA checklist entry to "Fee Model".
- Around line 116-117: Change the vague checks into concrete validation steps
and standardize terminology: replace "Create Token transaction" and "token
creation tx" with a single phrase like "token creation transaction"; for "token
information section" require checking presence and correctness of fields (token
name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply, initialOwner/address, tokenId if
applicable, and any metadata URI) and validate value formats (non-empty strings,
decimals integer >=0, totalSupply numeric >0); for "paid fee row" require
checking that a paid-fee entry exists when a fee-based token is used, and
validate it lists each token identifier and amount used (tokenId/symbol, amount
numeric >0), the fee payer address, currency unit, and that the summed amounts
match the transaction fee charged.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dca81439-77bd-400b-bde3-7935ef022a74

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e3286fc and af80546.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• QA.md