Audit server implementation unit and integration tests

[ryanchristo]

Summary

As a followup to #995 and #1038, we need to perform an audit of our server implementation tests. In #995, we refine our client tests to be more focused on testing endpoints and commands (i.e. not duplicating the test cases that should be covered elsewhere). With #1038, this issue should have been caught by our tests.

While implementing #1021, I noticed several tests using an assumed key rather than using the key returned that is provided by InsertReturningId. I may have repeated this pattern in some of my updates as well, which could be the cause of the issue that went unnoticed. Another potential cause could have been a lack of scenarios such as creating multiple classes, projects, or batches, which is a separate issue that came up with #1032.

Problem Definition

Our unit tests and integration tests should catch issues such as the two mentioned above.

Proposal

Audit our unit and integration tests for the ecocredit server implementation and apply fixes:

• audit core server implementation and apply fixes Migrate ecocredit acceptance tests #893
• audit basket server implementation and apply fixes Migrate marketplace acceptance tests #894
• audit marketplace server implementation and apply fixes Update basket acceptance tests #895

For each of these items, we should make sure we are not assuming the key and using InsertReturningId and we should make sure we are providing scenarios with multiple classes, projects, and batches.

---

For Admin Use

• Not duplicate issue
• Appropriate labels applied
• Appropriate contributors tagged
• Contributor assigned/self-assigned

[ryanchristo]

Closing as msg server tests have been rewritten and reviewed as a part of #893, #894, and #895.