feat: Generate TS from XDR #871
Conversation
willemneal
force-pushed
the
feat/gen_ts
branch
3 times, most recently
from
32c25f7
to
806986f
Compare
If people use `yarn` in a project that uses this generated package, the generated package needs to have a `version` or `yarn install` will not work.
- No need to include files that don't have variables - Those backticks were silly
this removes the need for the `@signme` comments in the contract
I asked Dmitry: "if preflight returns an `auth` array, should we sign the whole transaction?" He answered: > not necessarily. `ContractAuth` entries do need a signature > to be filled in. if `addressWithNonce` is missing, then it's invoker auth > and can be signed as a part of tx. otherwise, the respective `Address` has > to sign the payload corresponding to `ContractAuth` (you can find more > details in this doc: > https://soroban.stellar.org/docs/how-to-guides/invoking-contracts-with-transactions#authorization-data) This seems to cover those alternative cases, just throwing NotImplementedErrors for now, but at least it's not quietly or confusingly failing.
|
I updated the branch and it even shows it on GH, but it is not showing up here for me. |
|
Just changed the target branch to itself and that seemed to fix it. |
- use a build script to create both ES Modules and CommonJS - specify `exports` in `package.json` so that consumers that use this library with `import` statements get ESM and those that use it with `require` get CJS. - add `.js` extensions to file paths. This should be inserted automatically by TypeScript during the build, but it's not, and for some reason NextJS can't consume ESM that doesn't have it. - remove environment variables. NextJS needs to have them with `process.env`, Astro needs to have them with `import.meta.env`, and there's no good way to have both. We'll be modifying this code soon anyhow.
Co-authored-by: Paul Bellamy <[email protected]>
|
Approved and merged into
|
What
Generate a TS file from XDR to allow for building TS interfaces from contracts.
Why
Allow Dapps to create custom interfaces for the contracts they interact with. This will be integrated with the CLI to be part of workflow.
Known limitations
[TODO or N/A]