feat(escrow): emit structured disputed event

[codewithzubair07]

Summary

This PR implements structured dispute event emission for the escrow contract.

Changes

• Added a structured EscrowDisputedEvent.
• Included raised_by, reason_code, and ledger in the event payload.
• Used the escrow record's order_id as the event escrow_id (BytesN<32>), matching the required event shape while keeping the change scoped to the escrow contract.
• Updated the dispute function to accept a reason_code.
• Added tests covering dispute event emission and rejection of disputes after terminal escrow states.

Closes #89

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Dispute actions now require a reason code, making disputes more informative.
  • Dispute events now publish the dispute raiser and the current ledger sequence (and use the order-based escrow identifier format).

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated dispute-resolution behavior to keep seller, buyer, release, and refund flows consistent with the new dispute details.

• Tests

  • Integration tests were adjusted to reflect the updated dispute interface and event data.

[drips-wave]

@codewithzubair07 Great news! 🎉 Based on an automated assessment of this PR, the linked Wave issue(s) no longer count against your application limits.

You can now already apply to more issues while waiting for a review of this PR. Keep up the great work! 🚀

Learn more about application limits

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 23c6cc27-e416-400f-af57-c3e59cf20511

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f119395 and 28eb786.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs
• contracts/escrow/src/lib.rs

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)

• contracts/escrow/src/lib.rs
• contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

EscrowDisputedEvent now carries escrow_id, raised_by, reason_code, and ledger, and dispute accepts a reason_code: Symbol. The dispute event emission and integration tests were updated to use the new payload and call shape.

Changes

Escrow Dispute Event Enrichment

Layer / File(s)	Summary
EscrowDisputedEvent struct and dispute method signature contracts/escrow/src/lib.rs	EscrowDisputedEvent fields changed to escrow_id: BytesN<32>, raised_by, reason_code, ledger; dispute adds reason_code: Symbol; event emission now uses record.order_id, caller, and the current ledger sequence.
Integration test updates contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs	symbol_short import added; three dispute tests now pass &symbol_short!("fraud") into escrow_client.dispute.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• DelegoLabs/Delego#41: Both PRs touch EscrowContract::dispute and its call sites.
• DelegoLabs/Delego#144: This PR extends the dispute flow and event payload used in that earlier dispute work.

Poem

A rabbit hops with reason clear,
“fraud” in a symbol, crisp and near.
The ledger ticks, the event takes flight,
with raised_by shining in the light.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	❓ Inconclusive	The PR matches the event shape and dispute-signature changes, but the summary doesn't confirm snapshot coverage or once-per-transition behavior.	Add or point to snapshot tests for topics and payloads, and verify the event is emitted only once on dispute entry.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: emitting a structured dispute event in escrow.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes stay focused on the escrow contract and its tests, with no obvious unrelated additions.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

Warning

Tools execution failed with the following error:

Failed to run tools: 13 INTERNAL: Received RST_STREAM with code 2 (Internal server error)

---

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

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs (1)

224-228: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Add assertions for the dispute event and terminal-state rejection.

• Check the emitted EscrowDisputedEvent fields/count (escrow_id should match t.order_id(), plus raised_by, reason_code, and ledger).
• Add a negative case for dispute after Released/Refunded escrows (InvalidStatus).

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs` around lines 224 - 228, The
current `escrow_client.dispute` test only checks the call succeeds, so extend
this case to assert the emitted `EscrowDisputedEvent` and its count, verifying
`escrow_id` matches `t.order_id()` and that `raised_by`, `reason_code`, and
`ledger` are correct. Also add a negative assertion in the integration test flow
for calling `dispute` on terminal escrows after `Released` or `Refunded`, and
confirm it returns `InvalidStatus` by exercising the same
`escrow_client.dispute` path used in the existing test.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs`:
- Around line 224-228: The current `escrow_client.dispute` test only checks the
call succeeds, so extend this case to assert the emitted `EscrowDisputedEvent`
and its count, verifying `escrow_id` matches `t.order_id()` and that
`raised_by`, `reason_code`, and `ledger` are correct. Also add a negative
assertion in the integration test flow for calling `dispute` on terminal escrows
after `Released` or `Refunded`, and confirm it returns `InvalidStatus` by
exercising the same `escrow_client.dispute` path used in the existing test.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 30c95903-ae9e-437e-9bb9-8354ec28c5f7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e38d7c6 and f119395.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• contracts/escrow/src/integration_tests.rs
• contracts/escrow/src/lib.rs

[ScriptedBro]

Fix the ci

[ScriptedBro]

Please resolve conflicts