feat(contracts): Port contracts from ethers-rs
#8
Conversation
| let contract_builder = Counter::deploy_builder(&provider); | ||
| let estimate = contract_builder.estimate_gas().await?; | ||
| let contract_address = | ||
| contract_builder.gas(estimate).gas_price(base_fee).nonce(U64::from(0)).deploy().await?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these should be auto-calculated, probably part of @yash-atreya's layer in alloy-rs/alloy#326 which i think probably should be always on, and we add an method to not layer it in the builder
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will implement in follow up ticket: #12
| // Retrieve the number, which should be 43. | ||
| let Counter::numberReturn { _0 } = contract.number().call().await?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DaniPopes @prestwich should we make the return value be automatically unwrapped/returned here by number().call() if it's a single field? i.e. i would pref to do let ret = contract.number().call().await?;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That'd be an inconsistent user-facing API, which I'm not generally a fan of
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but this API is not good either, let Counter::numberReturn { _0 } :( I could see us supporting deref to the inner field otherwise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but this API is not good either, let Counter::numberReturn { _0 } :( I could see us supporting deref to the inner field otherwise.
changing it to a single unwrapped ret value will also break symmetry of encode/decode for dynamically sized ret values, as i believe MyStruct and (MyStruct,) may have different encodings in some cases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Going to be merging this ticket as is, created this ticket: https://github.com/alloy-rs/alloy/issues/357 for the conversation to continue
| let contract = IERC20::new("0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2".parse()?, provider); | ||
|
|
||
| // Call the contract, retrieve the total supply. | ||
| let IERC20::totalSupplyReturn { _0 } = contract.totalSupply().call().await?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
still think we should do snake_case and add serde-renames style attributes to the sol macro @DaniPopes @prestwich
There was a problem hiding this comment.
before we add any more features to sol! we need to refactor to break out the input and expanders to make it more maintainable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created a ticket here: https://github.com/alloy-rs/alloy/issues/357 to continue the conversation
Going to merge this ticket as is - will reflect any changes in Alloy here
…ier anymore but `<_>` is required
|
Going to merge this, future API enhancements not yet reflected in Alloy are described in tickets here: alloy-rs/core#580 + alloy-rs/core#581 |
Motivation
To add examples from
ethers-rs:contractsSolution
Implements a subset of the examples in
ethers-rsas they are largely already covered by other examples or the implementation was missing. I've made some modifications to make it better fit for Alloy.I have not included the contract compilation flow as Alloy does not re-export
solc.Blocked
Marked as blocked until alloy-rs/alloy#326 is merged