fix undefined quote bug

[rouzwelt]

Motivation

fixes #420

Solution

Checks

By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:

• made this PR as small as possible
• unit-tested any new functionality
• linked any relevant issues or PRs
• included screenshots (if this involves a front-end change)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved error handling for trade simulations by adding validation to detect and properly handle missing quote data in inter-orderbook trades
  • Enhanced quote validation in intra-orderbook trades to return appropriate error results when quote data is unavailable

• Tests

  • Updated test cases to reflect the expanded quote field structure in trade orders

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

Test data objects in the inter-orderbook test module now include a quote field in takeOrder. Defensive guards were added to both inter and intra-orderbook trade simulation paths to check for missing quotes; if either the primary order or counterparty order lacks a quote, an error result is immediately returned instead of proceeding with undefined data.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test data shape alignment src/core/modes/inter/index.test.ts	Updated all takeOrder test data objects to include quote field, aligning test inputs with the expanded public shape
Intra-orderbook trade path guard src/core/modes/intra/index.ts	Added early-return guard in the per-counterparty mapping loop; if orderDetails.takeOrder.quote or counterparty.takeOrder.quote is missing, returns a SimulationResult error for that counterparty without invoking the simulator
Inter-orderbook trade path guard src/core/modes/inter/index.ts	Added defensive check before InterOrderbookTradeSimulator construction; if either the order or counterparty order lacks a quote, returns an immediate error simulation result

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

• Test data update is a straightforward, repetitive shape change
• Both guard implementations follow a consistent pattern and are focused error-handling additions with no complex logic
• All three changes are closely related to a single bug fix

Possibly related PRs

• add ability to specify trade types for orderbooks in yaml config #408: Modifies the same inter and intra trade simulation paths with similar early-return guards for quote validation, indicating parallel or related bug-fix efforts.

Suggested reviewers

• hardyjosh

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 2025-12-04-fix-undefined-quote-bug

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between aa68120 and 0555782.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/core/modes/inter/index.test.ts (7 hunks)
• src/core/modes/inter/index.ts (1 hunks)
• src/core/modes/intra/index.ts (1 hunks)

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get PR details including files changed and diff stats
gh pr view 421 --json files,additions,deletions,changedFiles

# Get the detailed diff to understand complexity
gh pr diff 421

Length of output: 7830

---

SIZE=S