-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
Refactor StarknetProvider
and StarknetRequest
#217
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
16658eb
Refactor `StarknetProvider` and `StarknetRequest`
franciszekjob 5dd956e
Remove unused `StarknetBatchRequest`
franciszekjob 2def07c
Update methods descriptions
franciszekjob e3f1254
Update methods descriptions
franciszekjob cdc3c24
Add missing `orderRpcResults` function
franciszekjob f8d0bc7
Add public init to `StarknetRequest`
franciszekjob 59eed4d
Format
franciszekjob a1e6722
Restore `emptyBatchRequestError`
franciszekjob 86d90e9
Correct comment phrasing
franciszekjob e5798bb
Remove public `init` from `StarknetRequest`
franciszekjob e30d9d9
Keep `JsonRpcMethod` internal
franciszekjob 9be66ea
Change `StarknetRequest` extension to `RequestBuilder` enum
franciszekjob a909a1d
Remove generic type from returned `StarknetRequest` in `RequestBuilder`
franciszekjob ed08337
Remove unnecessarily added `public` modifiers
franciszekjob 5615492
Format DocC
franciszekjob e0cb012
Remove `provider` from `StarknetAccountProtocol`
franciszekjob cb1caf1
Keep `provider` private in `StarknetAccount`
franciszekjob 3f8581b
Change methods in `RequestBuilder` to be public
franciszekjob File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. note: Deleting as it's not used anymore. |
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
note:
provider
needs to be changed to public, because it's added inStarknetAccountProtocol
here.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.
Hmmm, I understand that it's used in the extensions, but I wonder if
provider
should be included in the account protocol, as it's making the protocol reliant on component that is more implementation-specific (rpc communication), therefore making the account protocol less abstractThere 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 agree 👍 Just one remark - not adding
provider
inStarknetAccountProtocol
enforces to add extraprovider
param inestimateFeeV1
andestimateFeeV3
. Hope this one is not too cumbersome while using these methods.Wdyt guys @DelevoXDG @mluisbrown?
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.
We would only need to pass in the
provider
in theestimate
methods that don't takenonce
param, right? That seems ok to me.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.
We would keep the
provider
property inStarknetAccount
though, right? It doesn't need to be in theprotocol
but it needs to be a public property inStarknetAccount
.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.
Ofc, we will keep it in
StarknetAccount
. I addedprovider
param toestimateFeeV1/3
which don't havenonce
param 👍 .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't we just make the methods abstract and define them in
StarknetAccount
instead?