feat: VVM injection, internal functions and variables #294
Conversation
depends on vyperlang/vvm#21
|
I'm waiting for vyperlang/vvm#21 and vyperlang/vvm#23 before finishing this PR |
DanielSchiavini
changed the title
| return None | ||
|
|
||
| result = vvm.compile_source( | ||
| self.source_code, vyper_version=self.vyper_version, output_format="metadata" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why don't we just get metadata to begin with (when generating VVMDeployer)?
also, note that metadata isn't available in all versions of vyper, and it is not guaranteed to be stable between releases. but this probably works for recent vyper versions (0.3.7-0.3.10)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For what it's worth I would have no objection to restricting the scope of the VVM functionalities to 0.3.7+
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why don't we just get metadata to begin with (when generating VVMDeployer)?
Can we do that without calling the compiler twice? I implemented it here so it's only done when necessary (note the cached_property)
also, note that metadata isn't available in all versions of Vyper
We'll show the error from the compiler, so it should be clear when not supported
not guaranteed to be stable between releases
If you way to get info about private functions that's stable please let me know
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why don't we just get metadata to begin with (when generating VVMDeployer)?
Can we do that without calling the compiler twice? I implemented it here so it's only done when necessary (note the
cached_property)
ah, maybe we should have added the option for multiple output formats in vvm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That doesn't work with combined_json anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yea, we should probably add "stabilize" metadata (which, i think we have mostly stopped making changes to it) and add to combined_json output.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sounds like a good idea, however that won't work for old vyper versions
DanielSchiavini
changed the title
| self.contract = contract | ||
|
|
||
| def get(self, *args): | ||
| return self.__call__(*args) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this doesn't really work the same way as VyperContract.get()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please explain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in vyper_contract.StorageVar.get(), it takes no arguments, and instead iterates over touched storage slots to reconstruct a dict. the way it's done here, it exposes a getter which the user needs to provide arguments to
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i am mildly ok with not requiring the API to be the same, but in that case we should probably call it something else, like get_value_at()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah OK, I thought that's how that worked, I might have mixed it up when implementing zksync plugin.
I don't think we can get all the key values via the ABI
What I did
inject_function,internaland_storagecontract methods for any contract compiled via the VVMHow I did it
Cute Animal Picture