feat: Add NotApplicable benchmark result type

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -289,22 +289,26 @@ For reference, see [ensawards.org/data/ens-best-practices/contract-naming/name-y
       * user interactions to be evaluated,
       * and any relevant technical details or considerations.
       *
-      * @note The description should not include examples of passed or failed benchmarks,
+      * @note The description should not include examples of
+      * passed, partially passed, failed, or not applicable benchmarks,
       * there are dedicated fields for that
       * (see {@link AcceptanceTest.examplePass},
       * {@link AcceptanceTest.examplePartialPass},
-      * or {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleFail}).
+      * {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleFail},
+      * or {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleNotApplicable}).
       */
       description: JSX.Element;
 
       /**
       * Examples of benchmark results that illustrate
-      * what a passing, partially passing, or failing result
+      * what a passing, partially passing, failing,
+      * or not applicable result
       * looks like for this acceptance test.
       */
       examplePass: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPass;
       examplePartialPass?: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass;
       exampleFail?: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail;
+      exampleNotApplicable?: NotApplicableAcceptanceTestBenchmark;
     }
     ```
 4. In your PR describe your reasoning for adding it.
@@ -371,6 +375,7 @@ export const BenchmarkResults = {
   Pass: "passed",
   PartialPass: "partially-passed",
   Fail: "failed",
+  NotApplicable: "not-applicable",
 } as const;
 
 export type BenchmarkResult = (typeof BenchmarkResults)[keyof typeof BenchmarkResults];
@@ -444,10 +449,23 @@ export interface AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass
 export interface AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail
   extends AcceptanceTestBenchmarkAbstract<typeof BenchmarkResults.Fail> {}
 
-export type AcceptanceTestBenchmark =
+/**
+ * Represents a benchmark of an {@link AcceptanceTest} on an {@link App} against a {@link BestPractice},
+ * that is not applicable to the acceptance test scenario.
+ * Most often, this is because the app doesn't use ENS at all,
+ * in places where it should.
+ */
+export interface NotApplicableAcceptanceTestBenchmark
+  extends AcceptanceTestBenchmarkAbstract<typeof BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable> {}
+
+export type ApplicableAcceptanceTestBenchmark =
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPass
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail;
+
+export type AcceptanceTestBenchmark =
+  | ApplicableAcceptanceTestBenchmark
+  | NotApplicableAcceptanceTestBenchmark;
 ```
 
 3. Add notes made during the benchmarking process in the form of a simple JSX element that is a part of the new item in the `benchmarks` record. For reference, see 

ensawards.org/data/acceptance-tests/types.ts

@@ -27,22 +27,26 @@ export interface AcceptanceTest {
    * user interactions to be evaluated,
    * and any relevant technical details or considerations.
    *
-   * @note The description should not include examples of passed or failed benchmarks,
+   * @note The description should not include examples of
+   * passed, partially passed, failed, or not applicable benchmarks,
    * there are dedicated fields for that
    * (see {@link AcceptanceTest.examplePass},
    * {@link AcceptanceTest.examplePartialPass},
-   * or {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleFail}).
+   * {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleFail},
+   * or {@link AcceptanceTest.exampleNotApplicable}).
    */
   description: JSX.Element;
 
   /**
    * Examples of benchmark results that illustrate
-   * what a passing, partially passing, or failing result
+   * what a passing, partially passing, failing,
+   * or not applicable result
    * looks like for this acceptance test.
    */
   examplePass: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPass;
   examplePartialPass?: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass;
   exampleFail?: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail;
+  exampleNotApplicable?: AcceptanceTestBenchmarkNotApplicable;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -92,7 +96,20 @@ export interface AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass
 export interface AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail
   extends AcceptanceTestBenchmarkAbstract<typeof BenchmarkResults.Fail> {}
 
-export type AcceptanceTestBenchmark =
+/**
+ * Represents a benchmark of an {@link AcceptanceTest} on an {@link App} against a {@link BestPractice},
+ * that is not applicable to the acceptance test scenario.
+ * Most often, this is because the app doesn't use ENS at all,
+ * in places where it should.
+ */
+export interface AcceptanceTestBenchmarkNotApplicable
+  extends AcceptanceTestBenchmarkAbstract<typeof BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable> {}
+
+export type AcceptanceTestBenchmarkApplicable =
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPass
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkPartialPass
   | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkFail;
+
+export type AcceptanceTestBenchmark =
+  | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkApplicable
+  | AcceptanceTestBenchmarkNotApplicable;

ensawards.org/data/acceptance-tests/utils.test.ts

@@ -25,25 +25,32 @@ describe("Acceptance test utils", () => {
       },
     );
 
-    it("Returns `BenchmarkResults.Fail` if all defined benchmarks are `BenchmarkResults.Fail`", () => {
-      const expectedResult = BenchmarkResults.Fail;
+    it(
+      "Returns `BenchmarkResults.Fail` if in all defined benchmarks there is at least one `BenchmarkResults.Fail`" +
+        " and all others are `BenchmarkResults.Fail` or `BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable`",
+      () => {
+        const expectedResult = BenchmarkResults.Fail;
 
-      const inputBenchmarks = {
-        "mock-acceptance-test-1": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.Fail),
-        "mock-acceptance-test-2": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.Fail),
-        "mock-acceptance-test-3": undefined,
-        // pending benchmarks should be ignored in this case of the generalization
-      } as const satisfies AcceptanceTestBenchmarks;
+        const inputBenchmarks = {
+          "mock-acceptance-test-1": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.Fail),
+          "mock-acceptance-test-2": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.Fail),
+          "mock-acceptance-test-3": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(
+            BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
+          ),
+          "mock-acceptance-test-4": undefined,
+          // pending benchmarks should be ignored in this case of the generalization
+        } as const satisfies AcceptanceTestBenchmarks;
 
-      expect(
-        generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks),
-        "generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks should return `BenchmarkResults.Fail`",
-      ).toEqual(expectedResult);
-    });
+        expect(
+          generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks),
+          "generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks should return `BenchmarkResults.Fail`",
+        ).toEqual(expectedResult);
+      },
+    );
 
     it(
       "Returns `BenchmarkResults.PartialPass` if at least one defined benchmark is `BenchmarkResults.Fail`" +
-        " and at least one defined benchmark is `BenchmarkResults.Pass`",
+        " and at least one defined benchmark is `BenchmarkResults.Pass` or `BenchmarkResults.PartialPass`",
       () => {
         const expectedResult = BenchmarkResults.PartialPass;
 
@@ -78,18 +85,44 @@ describe("Acceptance test utils", () => {
       ).toEqual(expectedResult);
     });
 
-    it("Returns `undefined` if all benchmarks are `undefined` (pending)", () => {
-      const expectedResult = undefined;
+    it("Returns `BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable` if all benchmarks are defined and `BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable`", () => {
+      const expectedResult = BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable;
 
       const inputBenchmarks = {
+        "mock-acceptance-test-1": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable),
+        "mock-acceptance-test-2": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable),
+        "mock-acceptance-test-3": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable),
+      } as const satisfies AcceptanceTestBenchmarks;
+
+      expect(
+        generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks),
+        "generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks should return `BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable`",
+      ).toEqual(expectedResult);
+    });
+
+    it("Returns `undefined` if all benchmarks are `undefined` (pending) or all defined benchmarks are `BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable`", () => {
+      const expectedResult = undefined;
+
+      const inputBenchmarks1 = {
         "mock-acceptance-test-1": undefined,
         "mock-acceptance-test-2": undefined,
       } as const satisfies AcceptanceTestBenchmarks;
 
+      const inputBenchmarks2 = {
+        "mock-acceptance-test-1": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable),
+        "mock-acceptance-test-2": createMockAcceptanceTestBenchmark(BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable),
+        "mock-acceptance-test-3": undefined,
+      } as const satisfies AcceptanceTestBenchmarks;
+
       expect(
-        generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks),
+        generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks1),
         "generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks should return `undefined` for all pending benchmarks",
       ).toEqual(expectedResult);
+
+      expect(
+        generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks(inputBenchmarks2),
+        "generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks should return `undefined` for all defined benchmarks being `NotApplicable`",
+      ).toEqual(expectedResult);
     });
   });
 });

ensawards.org/data/acceptance-tests/utils.ts

@@ -55,16 +55,22 @@ export const getAcceptanceTestBenchmarksByApp = (
  *       {@link BenchmarkResults.Pass}
  *     - and all others are {@link BenchmarkResults.Pass} or {@link BenchmarkResults.PartialPass}
  *
- * - Returns {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail} if all defined benchmarks
- * are {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail},
+ * - Returns {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail} if:
+ *     - in all defined benchmarks there is at least one
+ *       {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail}
+ *     - and all others are {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail} or {@link BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable}
  *
  * - Returns {@link BenchmarkResults.PartialPass} if:
  *     - at least one defined benchmark is {@link BenchmarkResults.Fail}
  *       and at least one defined benchmark is
  *       {@link BenchmarkResults.Pass} or {@link BenchmarkResults.PartialPass},
  *     - or all defined benchmarks are {@link BenchmarkResults.PartialPass},
  *
- * -  Returns `undefined` if all benchmarks are `undefined` (pending).
+ * - Returns {@link BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable} if:
+ *    - all benchmarks are **defined** and {@link BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable}
+ *
+ * -  Returns `undefined` if all benchmarks are `undefined` (pending)
+ *    or all defined benchmarks are {@link BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable}.
  */
 export const generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks = (
   acceptanceTestBenchmarks: AcceptanceTestBenchmarks,
@@ -75,7 +81,19 @@ export const generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks = (
 
   const definedBenchmarkResults = benchmarkResults.filter((result) => result !== undefined);
 
-  if (definedBenchmarkResults.length === 0) {
+  const allBenchmarksNotApplicable = definedBenchmarkResults.every(
+    (result) => result === BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
+  );
+
+  // We want to be very strict about returning NotApplicable,
+  // so we only return it if all benchmarks are defined and `NotApplicable`.
+  if (allBenchmarksNotApplicable && definedBenchmarkResults.length === benchmarkResults.length) {
+    return BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable;
+  }
+
+  // And for all possible mixes of pending and NotApplicable,
+  // we want to return undefined (pending).
+  if (definedBenchmarkResults.length === 0 || allBenchmarksNotApplicable) {
     return undefined;
   }
 
@@ -97,8 +115,10 @@ export const generalizeAcceptanceTestBenchmarks = (
     return BenchmarkResults.Pass;
   }
 
+  // For now, we'll explicitly treat fail and not applicable equally
+  // (For cases where not all benchmarks are not applicable)
   const allDefinedBenchmarksFail = definedBenchmarkResults.every(
-    (result) => result === BenchmarkResults.Fail,
+    (result) => result === BenchmarkResults.Fail || result === BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
   );
 
   if (allDefinedBenchmarksFail) {

ensawards.org/data/apps/binance-exchange/benchmarks/index.tsx

@@ -19,26 +19,37 @@ import correctlyResolveEnsv2TestNameAddressProofImageWithdrawal from "./correctl
 const benchmarks: BestPracticeBenchmarks = {
   "ensv2-ready-resolution": {
     "correctly-resolve-ensv2-test-name-address": {
-      result: BenchmarkResults.Fail,
+      result: BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
       contributions: [
         { from: contributors.y3drk, lastUpdated: parseTimestamp("2026-06-11T07:30:06Z") },
       ],
       notes: (
         <div className={cn(acceptanceTestDetailsContainerStyles, "w-full")}>
           <p className="w-full">
             ENSv2 ready resolution was tested using the search tool in the &quot;copy-trading&quot;
-            flow. The app either doesn't allow using ENS name as the trader identifier or fails to
-            resolve it, both of which we interpret as a failure.
+            flow. The app doesn't support the use of ENS names at all as the trader identifier.
+            <br />
+            <br />
+            While that's a key issue that this app is encouraged to improve, this best practice is
+            applicable specifically to apps that already have an existing ENS integration and making
+            sure existing integrations are ENSv2 compatible. Therefore, for this best practice we
+            apply a rating of not applicable.
           </p>
           <img
             alt="Binance exchange doesn't allow ENS name as trader in the copy-trading flow"
             src={correctlyResolveEnsv2TestNameAddressProofImageCopyTrading.src}
             className="w-auto h-full max-h-[325px] rounded-xl"
           />
+          <span className="w-full h-px bg-gray-200 my-5" />
           <p className="w-full">
             The ENSv2 ready resolution was also tested using the &quot;withdrawal&quot; flow. The
-            app doesn't allow using ENS name as the recipient identifier, which we interpret as a
-            failure.
+            app doesn't support the use of ENS names at all as the recipient identifier.
+            <br />
+            <br />
+            While that's a key issue that this app is encouraged to improve, this best practice is
+            applicable specifically to apps that already have an existing ENS integration and making
+            sure existing integrations are ENSv2 compatible. Therefore, for this best practice we
+            apply a rating of not applicable.
           </p>
           <img
             alt="Binance exchange doesn't allow ENS name as recipient in the withdrawal flow"

ensawards.org/data/apps/binance-wallet/benchmarks/index.tsx

@@ -28,15 +28,21 @@ const benchmarks: BestPracticeBenchmarks = {
   },
   "ensv2-ready-resolution": {
     "correctly-resolve-ensv2-test-name-address": {
-      result: BenchmarkResults.Fail,
+      result: BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
       contributions: [
         { from: contributors.y3drk, lastUpdated: parseTimestamp("2026-06-11T07:33:06Z") },
       ],
       notes: (
         <div className={cn(acceptanceTestDetailsContainerStyles, "w-full")}>
           <p className="w-full">
             ENSv2 ready resolution was tested using the &quot;send&quot; flow. The wallet doesn't
-            allow using ENS name as the recipient identifier, which we interpret as a failure.
+            support the use of ENS names at all as the recipient identifier.
+            <br />
+            <br />
+            While that's a key issue that this app is encouraged to improve, this best practice is
+            applicable specifically to apps that already have an existing ENS integration and making
+            sure existing integrations are ENSv2 compatible. Therefore, for this best practice we
+            apply a rating of not applicable.
           </p>
           <img
             alt="Binance Wallet doesn't allow ENS name as recipient in the send flow"

ensawards.org/data/apps/cryptocom-exchange/benchmarks/index.tsx

@@ -18,15 +18,21 @@ import correctlyResolveEnsv2TestNameAddressProofImage from "./correctly-resolve-
 const benchmarks: BestPracticeBenchmarks = {
   "ensv2-ready-resolution": {
     "correctly-resolve-ensv2-test-name-address": {
-      result: BenchmarkResults.Fail,
+      result: BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
       contributions: [
         { from: contributors.y3drk, lastUpdated: parseTimestamp("2026-06-11T13:47:40Z") },
       ],
       notes: (
         <div className={cn(acceptanceTestDetailsContainerStyles, "w-full")}>
           <p className="w-full">
             ENSv2 ready resolution was tested using the &quot;withdrawal&quot; flow. The app doesn't
-            allow using ENS name as the recipient identifier, which we interpret as a failure.
+            support the use of ENS names at all as the recipient identifier.
+            <br />
+            <br />
+            While that's a key issue that this app is encouraged to improve, this best practice is
+            applicable specifically to apps that already have an existing ENS integration and making
+            sure existing integrations are ENSv2 compatible. Therefore, for this best practice we
+            apply a rating of not applicable.
           </p>
           <img
             alt="Crypto.com exchange doesn't allow ENS name as recipient in the withdrawal flow"

ensawards.org/data/apps/kraken-exchange/benchmarks/index.tsx

@@ -18,15 +18,21 @@ import correctlyResolveEnsv2TestNameAddressProofImage from "./correctly-resolve-
 const benchmarks: BestPracticeBenchmarks = {
   "ensv2-ready-resolution": {
     "correctly-resolve-ensv2-test-name-address": {
-      result: BenchmarkResults.Fail,
+      result: BenchmarkResults.NotApplicable,
       contributions: [
         { from: contributors.y3drk, lastUpdated: parseTimestamp("2026-06-11T10:47:44Z") },
       ],
       notes: (
         <div className={cn(acceptanceTestDetailsContainerStyles, "w-full")}>
           <p className="w-full">
             ENSv2 ready resolution was tested using the &quot;withdrawal&quot; flow. The app doesn't
-            allow using ENS name as the recipient identifier, which we interpret as a failure.
+            support the use of ENS names at all as the recipient identifier.
+            <br />
+            <br />
+            While that's a key issue that this app is encouraged to improve, this best practice is
+            applicable specifically to apps that already have an existing ENS integration and making
+            sure existing integrations are ENSv2 compatible. Therefore, for this best practice we
+            apply a rating of not applicable.
           </p>
           <img
             alt="Kraken exchange doesn't allow ENS name as recipient in the withdrawal flow"