How should we deal with redundant branches?

[smol-ninja]

In open-ended, since there is no concept of "operators" or "approved third party", should we remove test branches that deal with malicious third party as the caller?

Take the following example from cancel.tree:

cancel.t.sol
// --- snip --- //
          ├── when the caller is unauthorized
          │  ├── when the caller is the recipient
          │  │  └── it should revert
          │  └── when the caller is a malicious third party
          │     └── it should revert
          └── when the caller is authorized
// --- snip --- //

However, we could just say

cancel.t.sol
// --- snip --- //
          ├── when the caller is not sender
          │  └── it should revert
          └── when the caller is sender
// --- snip --- //

It simplifies the integration test and makes it clearer who the caller is.

What do you think @andreivladbrg ?

[smol-ninja]

@andreivladbrg would love to have your take on this as well.

[andreivladbrg]

when we talk about a "malicious third party" it doesn't necessarily refer to any operator or any approved address - it simply refers to an unknown actor within our protocol (i.e. not the recipient or the sender).

we will be adding NFTs, so we will have operators if you have a problem with the terminology.