feat: add receipt action for using global contract code #12749
Conversation
pugachAG
force-pushed
the
add-use-global-contract-action
branch
from
56b2cc7 to
805c06e
Compare
| @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ impl ReceiptPreparationPipeline { | |||
| for (action_index, action) in actions.iter().enumerate() { | |||
| let account_id = account_id.clone(); | |||
| match action { | |||
| Action::DeployContract(_) => { | |||
| Action::DeployContract(_) | Action::UseGlobalContract(_) => { | |||
| @@ -270,6 +306,7 @@ pub enum Action { | |||
| DeleteAccount(DeleteAccountAction), | |||
| Delegate(Box<delegate::SignedDelegateAction>), | |||
| DeployGlobalContract(DeployGlobalContractAction), | |||
| UseGlobalContract(Box<UseGlobalContractAction>), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was wondering when do we use a Box vs when not? Example DeployGlobalContract doesn't have a Box
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is static assert below:
const _: () = assert!(
// 1 word for tag plus the largest variant `DeployContractAction` which is a 3-word `Vec`.
// The `<=` check covers platforms that have pointers smaller than 8 bytes as well as random
// freak nightlies that somehow find a way to pack everything into one less word.
std::mem::size_of::<Action>() <= 32,
"Action <= 32 bytes for performance reasons, see #9451"
);
| UseGlobalContract { | ||
| code_hash: CryptoHash, | ||
| }, | ||
| UseGlobalContractByAccountId { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checking if it's fine to have two separate enums here while we have just one in Action::UseGlobalContract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my understanding it is OK, since Action is our internal representation while ActionView is public API. So I decided to have single Action because it is more concise. Having separate ActionView for deploying by account id avoids overcomplicating public api with choosing the identifier.
pugachAG
force-pushed
the
add-use-global-contract-action
branch
from
805c06e to
8dfb3dd
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #12749 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.69% 70.63% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 848 849 +1
Lines 174376 174470 +94
Branches 174376 174470 +94
==========================================
- Hits 123280 123235 -45
- Misses 45950 46086 +136
- Partials 5146 5149 +3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This PR is similar to #12737, but for using global contracts.
Part of #12716.