Policy/GAS/Designation contracts RPC wrappers #2643
Conversation
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
policy-contract-rpc-wrapper
branch
from
ffeb5ea to
a77708d
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2643 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.83% 84.93% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 306 309 +3
Lines 38404 38490 +86
==========================================
+ Hits 32580 32690 +110
+ Misses 4450 4421 -29
- Partials 1374 1379 +5
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
| GAS itself only has standard NEP-17 methods, so this package only contains its | ||
| hash and allows to create NEP-17 structures in an easier way. | ||
| */ | ||
| package gas |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, I'm also thinking about gastoken and neotoken.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm OK with just gas and neo, because we already have an external interop API with gas and neo packages. With it our native interop wrappers and RPC client interface look unified. Also, gas and neo are shorter, which is nice IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you want to rename them because of such situations?
gasprom := gas.New(act)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. We use gas a lot for variable names. But some symmetry with interops is also a valid argument.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may leave it to the user side, in case if he needed he can always use an import alias. But generally, I'm not against renaming.
And test it with RPC server.
Test it with the RPC server.
And test it with the RPC server. Notice that getters still return int64 instead of *big.Int, that's because these values are very limited and technically could even fit into an int (but that seems to be too dangerous to use for long-term compatibility).
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
policy-contract-rpc-wrapper
branch
from
a77708d to
5d54553
Compare
Moving on with #2597.