fix(test): use this.value instead of undefined this.amount

[Forostovec]

Replace the undefined variable this.amount with this.value in test/metatx/ERC2771Forwarder.test.js at the expired deadline path for the zero refund receiver scenario to align with the suite’s established pattern where this.value holds the sum of request values computed in the beforeEach, ensuring executeBatch receives the correct msg.value as required by the contract which reverts on ERC2771ForwarderMismatchedValue when totals do not match; this change also mirrors nearby tests that already pass { value: this.value } and prevents a test reference error from masking the intended ERC2771ForwarderExpiredRequest assertion.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 8925666

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

This change corrects test assertions in the ERC2771Forwarder.executeBatch tampering tests. Two assertions were modified to use this.value instead of this.amount when passing values to executeBatch, ensuring the test accurately reflects the total value computed for the batch. The test continues to validate behavior for scenarios involving non-current nonces and expired deadlines, with corresponding assertions for custom error cases. No changes to public signatures or exported interfaces were introduced.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main change: replacing an undefined variable with a defined one in the test file.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining the specific variable replacement, its context, and the rationale behind the fix.
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

---

📜 Recent 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 8925666.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/metatx/ERC2771Forwarder.test.js (1 hunks)

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

🔇 Additional comments (1)

test/metatx/ERC2771Forwarder.test.js (1)

271-271: LGTM! Correct variable reference fixes the test.

The change from this.amount (undefined) to this.value (defined at line 202) is correct and aligns with the pattern used throughout this test suite. This fix ensures the test passes the correct msg.value to executeBatch and prevents a ReferenceError from masking the intended ERC2771ForwarderExpiredRequest assertion.

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.}