-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Batch Contract Read #926
Batch Contract Read #926
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm curious - what are we testing via these tests? Do we have any sort of E2E testing ability to test against a simulated backend? What are the existing tests actually testing?
} | ||
|
||
*ptrToValue = value | ||
|
||
return nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't we still need to set returnVal.(*values.Value)
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The type casting creates the pointer to the value. Setting the value on line 157 is correct. You can see the implementation in evm is the same.
binding.Decode(ctx, data[idx], contractType), | ||
) | ||
|
||
value, err := values.Wrap(contractType) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In what format does the rpc return data? Do we have to da a borsh decode?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since the start, we have been assuming binary encoded data (borsh). The other option is JSON but so far expectations did not include json.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't have enough context on batch, but everything else looks fine
Batch contract reads are added and multiple address support was removed. All tests now pass.
27a3c1b
to
3c98680
Compare
Quality Gate failedFailed conditions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Batch contract reads are added and multiple address support was removed. All tests now pass.