Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat: VVM injection, internal functions and variables #294
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: VVM injection, internal functions and variables #294
Changes from 19 commits
63910a4
99bf860
bae493b
2fd09c0
1114804
7418116
2ce4436
9a0cd05
37cf4eb
b375574
99cb8e1
8b778dd
eb4518f
8de1b7f
4e0876f
28e97cd
7837fdb
e101d0b
dcfe941
23ed6ec
f99a667
a96aeb4
42eca98
3f302ed
da7467e
d6dad63
550b334
ea4bccb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we do that without calling the compiler twice? I implemented it here so it's only done when necessary (note the
cached_property
)We'll show the error from the compiler, so it should be clear when not supported
If you way to get info about private functions that's stable please let me know
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.
ah, maybe we should have added the option for multiple output formats in vvm
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.
That doesn't work with
combined_json
anywayThere 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.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sounds like a good idea, however that won't work for old vyper versions
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.
this doesn't really work the same way as
VyperContract.get()
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.
please explain
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
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 toThere 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 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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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