fix: incorrect protobuf body field used

[kantorcodes]

Description:

This PR fixes _fromProtobuf inside of TokenUpdateNftsTransaction to use the correct tokenUpdateNfts field instead of tokenUpdate. Upon investigating https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-wallet-connect/issues/265, we realized this property was not being referenced properly.

Related issue(s):

Fixes https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-wallet-connect/issues/265

Notes for reviewer:

You can confirm the error happens outside of this branch by running the following code:

import Long from "long";
import { TokenUpdateNftsTransaction, Transaction } from "./exports.js";

const updateNftsTransaction = new TokenUpdateNftsTransaction()
    .setTokenId("0.0.123")
    .setSerialNumbers([Long.fromInt(1)])
    .setMetadata(new TextEncoder().encode("metadata"));

const parsedTx = Transaction.fromBytes(updateNftsTransaction.toBytes());

console.log("parsedTx: ", parsedTx._makeTransactionBody());

Checklist

• [ ] Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
• [ ] Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 84.77%. Comparing base (cf51a5a) to head (bda8dfe). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #2613 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 84.72% 84.77% +0.04% ========================================== Files 283 283 Lines 71094 71094 ========================================== + Hits 60234 60269 +35 + Misses 10860 10825 -35 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ivaylogarnev-limechain]

Hi @kantorcodes , thank you for submitting this PR! It looks great.

Would you mind adding a unit test for this change in the TokenUpdateTransaction.js to satisfy the code coverage in the CI check?

[0xivanov]

Nice catch! This should be the correct behaviour.

Looks like we were missing some unit tests for this class as a whole and we also have a TokenNftsUpdateTransaction class which should be deleted. @ivaylogarnev-limechain do you think we can do this in a follow up issue?

[ivaylogarnev-limechain]

Nice catch! This should be the correct behaviour.

Looks like we were missing some unit tests for this class as a whole and we also have a TokenNftsUpdateTransaction class which should be deleted. @ivaylogarnev-limechain do you think we can do this in a follow up issue?

For sure, that sounds like a better option.

[agadzhalov]

Hi @kantorcodes thanks for your effort. Your commit is not verified, it's signed, but it's not verified which may cause us problems in the future, can you try to sign it again may be using ammend. I can also see that your commits are not verified in other repos.

Are you sure you've setup your GPG keys properly? You can look at this page for more info (Signing commits).

[kantorcodes]

Hi @kantorcodes thanks for your effort. Your commit is not verified, it's signed, but it's not verified which may cause us problems in the future, can you try to sign it again may be using ammend. I can also see that your commits are not verified in other repos.

Are you sure you've setup your GPG keys properly? You can look at this page for more info (Signing commits).

Thanks! I think I've got these signed properly now :)

[sonarcloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[kantorcodes]

commits must be verified

Thanks for taking a look. I think commits should be signed properly. I realized afterwards (and likely why this went unnoticed initially) that fromProtobuf had no test coverage and this seems to have blocked the merge, so I added another commit to add a basic test in as well.