feat: guide user to call a contract #306

AlexD10S · 2024-09-09T15:37:55Z

PR that parses the contract metadata and guides the user in interacting with the smart contract

┌   Pop CLI : Call a contract
│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  15XausWjFLBBFLDXUSBRfSfZk25warm4wZRV4ZxhZbfvjrJm
│
◇  Select the message to call:
│  get 
│
◇  Where is your contract deployed?
│  wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz
│
◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  //Alice
│
◓  Calling the contract...                                                                                                                                            ⚙  Result: Ok(false)
│  
▲  Your call has not been executed.
│  
◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No 
└

Apologies for the large PR; it grew bigger as we needed to test user interactions in the pop-cli crate.
This required adding more code for testing purposes, including changes to the CLI module and the introduction of a new init_tests file which contains reusable methods for various tests.

Ideally, these changes should have been introduced in #315, but they were included here due to the necessity of testing the current implementation.

Another note, for testing purposes it has introduced a testing.json file. This file is the metadata of a modified flipper contract, which includes an extra message, to effectively test argument parsing and payable functions.

/// A message for testing, flips the value of the stored `bool` with `new_value`
/// and is payable
#[ink(message)]
#[ink(payable)]
pub fn specific_flip(&mut self, new_value: bool) {
    self.value = new_value;
}

codecov · 2024-09-10T07:15:16Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 79.18552% with 322 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.54%. Comparing base (258a4b2) to head (b0f3e8b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	84.98%	44 Missing and 85 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs	75.06%	71 Missing and 26 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/cli.rs	56.58%	50 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	71.42%	0 Missing and 14 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs	82.43%	0 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/common/build.rs	73.07%	1 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/testing.rs	68.42%	0 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #306      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.47%   72.54%   +2.07%     
==========================================
  Files          54       57       +3     
  Lines        9250    10665    +1415     
  Branches     9250    10665    +1415     
==========================================
+ Hits         6519     7737    +1218     
- Misses       1737     1839     +102     
- Partials      994     1089      +95

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/up/contract.rs	`18.46% <100.00%> (-5.42%)`	⬇️
crates/pop-contracts/src/errors.rs	`100.00% <ø> (+100.00%)`	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/testing.rs	`68.42% <68.42%> (ø)`
crates/pop-cli/src/common/build.rs	`73.07% <73.07%> (ø)`
crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs	`81.22% <82.43%> (+2.60%)`	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	`80.33% <71.42%> (+2.44%)`	⬆️
crates/pop-cli/src/cli.rs	`67.36% <56.58%> (-4.89%)`	⬇️
crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs	`75.06% <75.06%> (ø)`
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	`83.33% <84.98%> (+83.33%)`	⬆️

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

brunopgalvao

Overall it LGTM. Some feedback:

┌   Pop CLI : Call a contract
│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  5DYs7UGBm2LuX4ryvyqfksozNAW5V47tPbGiVgnjYWCZ29bt
│
└  Unable to fetch contract metadata.
Error: Anyhow error: Cannot infer the root project id

It would be nice if “error” was not repeated. Something like this:

│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  5DYs7UGBm2LuX4ryvyqfksozNAW5V47tPbGiVgnjYWCZ29bt
│
└  Unable to fetch contract metadata.
Error: Cannot infer the root project id

Same with this:

◇  Do you want to execute the call? (Selecting 'No' will perform a dry run)
│  Yes 
│
Error: Rpc error: RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Caused by:
    RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Change to this:

◇  Do you want to execute the call? (Selecting 'No' will perform a dry run)
│  Yes 
│
Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Caused by:
    RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./flipper

Autocomplete when typing the contract's location would be useful.

Looking up RPC URL's can be cumbersome. It would be nice to be able to select commonly used RPC URL's such as Pop Network or localhost.

So this:

◇  Where is your contract deployed?
│  wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz

Could be something like this:

◆  Where is your contract deployed?
│  ● Pop Network TestNet (wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz)
│  ○ Local on Port 9944 (ws://localhost:9944) ○ Custom (Specify)

Change this:

◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No

To something like this:

◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ● No
│  ○ Yes, with the same contract
│  ○ Yes, with another contract on the same chain

If this change will not be incorporated then at least don’t clear the screen when I say “yes” to call another contract so that I can copy the address and chain URL. Regardless, the default for pop call contract should be to never clear the screen when it is ran because I find it useful to have a “log” of calls that I have done either for copying info to use again or simply to remember the order of calls that I have done and with which parameters.

Change this:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ● flip ( A message that can be called on instantiated contracts.  This one flips the value of the stored `bool` from `true`  to `false` and vice versa.)
│  ○ get 
└

I would imagine these Rust Doc comments can easily be 4+ lines for a more sophisticated contract.
For example:

/// Use the new `call_v2` host function via the call builder to forward calls to
/// the other contract, initially calling `flip` and then `get` to return the
/// result.
///
/// This demonstrates how to set the new weight and storage limit parameters via
/// the call builder API.

https://github.com/use-ink/ink-examples/blob/682605fb39f4d9a2d69a48ffc0ce042602386ad9/cross-contract-calls/lib.rs#L75C1-L80C34

Therefore I would have it be displayed underneath the function call making sure to preserve the same formatting that was presented in the Rust Doc comment e.g.:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ● flip_and_get_invoke_v2_with_limits
|  
│   Use the new `call_v2` host function via the call builder to forward calls to
│   the other contract, initially calling `flip` and then `get` to return the
│   result.
│   
│   This demonstrates how to set the new weight and storage limit parameters via
│   the call builder API.
|  
│  ○ get 
└

◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  //Alice

For a custom account, I was not sure what to input so I pasted my account’s address:

◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  16hkVKMehgVjTP7AsUvhU8rsYQhK9JDirPWWhpAwHaFTHRfc

Error: Failed to create keypair from URI: Cannot parse phrase: mnemonic has an invalid word count: 1. Word count must be 12, 15, 18, 21, or 24

It was not intuitive to me that it was expecting a mnemonic phrase like so:

│  car pocket team home penalty leg forget attend draft width blush lettuce

…ceholder

…reen

AlexD10S · 2024-09-13T09:45:13Z

Thanks for the feedback @brunopgalvao
Nice catch on the error messages.
I’ve improved the error message you mentioned, but error handling needs a proper refactor in all the project. Since it could become a larger task for this PR, I’ve opened a new issue to address it separately: #309

Great point about placing the message docs below the message name I’ve fixed that:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ○ flip
 
│  ● get
 ( Simply returns the current value of our `bool`.)
│  ○ specific_flip
 
└

Same for clearing the screen when prompting for another call. I liked your idea of reusing the contract information, but I reduced it to two options instead of the three you suggested. If want to call another contract, the user should start again:

◆  Do you want to do another call using the existing smart contract?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No

Autocomplete for the path and a list of addresses for me are nice-to-have features we can add in the future, feel free to create issues if you think they are needed.

As for the signer, I’m not sure how to improve that right now, but we’ll be working on a better process for signing transactions soon, so hopefully that will make things clearer.

Another piece of feedback from @peterwht that has been implemented is showing the user the call that will be executed after all the values are prompted:

⚙  pop call contract --path ./ --contract 5GumB5XDPMT7i1JAFTApxhEneWqRyLaBGdJb8CVXngb4ngTX --message get --url ws://localhost:9944/ --suri //Alice
│  
◐  Calling the contract...                                                                                                                                            ⚙  Result: Ok(false)

The option to skip the dry-run and submit the call directly is a new feature. I’d prefer to address this in a separate PR. I’ve opened an issue for it: #310.

Daanvdplas · 2024-10-29T11:03:27Z

Some thoughts;

Improving the amount of clicks required to call a contract for testing:

when I was deploying my contract and testing it I don't want to think about the gas limit or proof size limit. So if we can call contracts with a flag that prevents always having to specify that it would be really nice and decreases the amount of clicks.
The last question; whether or not to call the contract again, is unnecessary maybe, just immediately ask for which message to call again and if the user wants to stop it can simply do ctrl c. Again, the fewer clicks the better the devex tmo.
The question whether or not to dry-run the call also seems unnecessary for testing. So perhaps a flag dev will prevent the weight limit question described in 1. and also this dry run question

Improving the functionality and usefulness of the pop cli:
It would be amazing if we could return the value of the message, this is decoding it and printing it out in the console. Then the dev really doesn't have to use the contracts ui anymore. This is the successful return value, error type, even returning the event would be a requirement here I think.
Potential bugs:
I couldn't deploy a new contract while using --salt.

AlexD10S · 2024-11-05T10:16:41Z

Some thoughts;

Improving the amount of clicks required to call a contract for testing:

when I was deploying my contract and testing it I don't want to think about the gas limit or proof size limit. So if we can call contracts with a flag that prevents always having to specify that it would be really nice and decreases the amount of clicks.

The last question; whether or not to call the contract again, is unnecessary maybe, just immediately ask for which message to call again and if the user wants to stop it can simply do ctrl c. Again, the fewer clicks the better the devex tmo.

The question whether or not to dry-run the call also seems unnecessary for testing. So perhaps a flag dev will prevent the weight limit question described in 1. and also this dry run question

Improving the functionality and usefulness of the pop cli:
It would be amazing if we could return the value of the message, this is decoding it and printing it out in the console. Then the dev really doesn't have to use the contracts ui anymore. This is the successful return value, error type, even returning the event would be a requirement here I think.

Potential bugs:
I couldn't deploy a new contract while using --salt.

I like your idea to improving DevEx with less clicks. I’ve added the dev flag which for now skips the point 1 and 3. This provides a good starting point, and we can continue iterating from here @brunopgalvao thoughts?.

Regarding the --salt flag it works for me. Not it has to be an hex encoded value. I tried: --salt 0x6644a2ae6564ea712b23389008cf9e4fe635cd7d4e9b04dd4733eb614c4112ce (generated in https://ui.use.ink/instantiate) and --salt $(date +%s) (example form ink! docs https://use.ink/4.x/basics/cross-contract-calling#basiccontractref-walkthrough)

evilrobot-01

High level review only. I think addressing the suggested changes around the call contract command can greatly improve the UX and the simplify the implementation.

A more flexible experience provides a greater experience. With very little refactoring, I can partially specify args on the command line e.g. 'pop call contract --contract xx' and the call UI can be used if message is ommitted.

That means I can enter stuff into the command which I dont want to repeat over and over, and then allow the terminal history to bring it up and to get me back to the bits I want to specify.

I feel this should be addressed prior to this being merged as it improves the UX significantly.

crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs

crates/pop-contracts/tests/files/testing.contract

crates/pop-contracts/src/init_tests.rs

crates/pop-contracts/src/lib.rs

crates/pop-contracts/src/init_tests.rs

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-06T17:17:02Z

Running on the command on a fresh project, no build, results in the following:

AlexD10S · 2024-11-06T17:56:04Z

Running on the command on a fresh project, no build, results in the following:

Good catch! We can apply the same logic as the pop up contract building it if it hasn't been built already.

Merged set_up_call_config and guide_user_to_call_contract into a single function. Also adds short symbols for arguments.

al3mart

Right now we assume that we are receiving a path to a contract project to load the metadata, and if not present build the contract to obtain the metadata.

We only need the metadata in order to call a contract, so it would be handy having both, an option for any user to point to their project and build the contract if necessary, or passing the location of the metadata directly to pop. Maybe the user only has access to the metadata.

crates/pop-contracts/src/call/metadata.rs

* fix: automatically add some or none to Option argument * test: refactor and tests * refactor: improve code and comments * fix: renaming and clean code * chore: option params not mandatory * fix: parse user inputs for Option arguments in constructor (#335) * fix: automatically add some or none to Option argument * fix: tests * refactor: process_function_args * test: update tests accordingly last changes * fix: issue with delimiter * test: fix unit test * refactor: renaming and fix comments * refactor: format types (#339) Shows the full type representation, making it easier to see the entry format of parameter values. * fix: logo doesn't show in README --------- Co-authored-by: Frank Bell <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alejandro Martinez Andres <[email protected]>

* chore: allow the user specify the metadata file to call a contract * test: unit test to parse metadata from a file * docs: fix docs * refactor: ensure_contract_built after user input path * fix: call contract when metadata file * fix: remove default_input in contract address * docs: rename metadata with artifact * fix: panic at has_contract_been_built * fix: clippy * refactor: keep ensure_contract_built as a CallContractCommand function * fix: ensure_contract_built * docs: improve comments * fix: feedback and include wasm file for testing

al3mart · 2024-11-26T22:55:30Z

Good catch! We can apply the same logic as the pop up contract building it if it hasn't been built already.

A note on this one, @AlexD10S . Right now if we execute pop call contract on a contract that hasn't being built, and no metadata is provided either, the build starts right away which is great, but right after users are prompted for an address, as if the contract had been deployed already. At that point of the flow there's not much more users can do than killing the process.

…y deployed

AlexD10S · 2024-11-27T22:48:46Z

A note on this one, @AlexD10S . Right now if we execute pop call contract on a contract that hasn't being built, and no metadata is provided either, the build starts right away which is great, but right after users are prompted for an address, as if the contract had been deployed already. At that point of the flow there's not much more users can do than killing the process.

Interesting. After some discussions the best approach seems to be prompting the user after build the contract if the contract has already been deployed. There's a valid case where the contract hasn't been built locally, but the user still wants to interact with an already deployed contract, and the local build is only a way to get the artifacts.
If the user confirms, we continue; if they decline, we display a message prompting them to use pop up contract to deploy the contract.
Implementation in the last commit d71f35e

al3mart

After all the improvements and addressing all the feedback the call contract flow looks pretty nice!

I believe there's one new function that could be divided in two. But aside from that all is looking great. Thanks!

crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs

crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs

al3mart

All is looking great! ❤️

evilrobot-01

Whilst there are a lot of comments, most of them are minor. Once addressed I think we should be ready to merge.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:07:38Z

crates/pop-cli/src/common/mod.rs

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0

+#[cfg(feature = "contract")]


Why the need for this module, which has a single function, when there is already a contracts module?

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:08:49Z

crates/pop-cli/src/common/build.rs

+/// # Arguments
+/// * `path` - An optional path to the project directory. If no path is provided, the current
+///   directory is used.
+pub fn has_contract_been_built(path: Option<&Path>) -> bool {


Move to existing common/contracts module in the same crate. Can then remove this file completely.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:13:29Z

crates/pop-cli/src/common/build.rs

+///   directory is used.
+pub fn has_contract_been_built(path: Option<&Path>) -> bool {
+	let project_path = path.unwrap_or_else(|| Path::new("./"));
+	let manifest = match from_path(Some(project_path)) {


Can be simplified with let Ok(manifest) = from_path(Some(project_path)) else { return false; };

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:23:19Z

crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs

 	/// The name of the contract message to call.
 	#[clap(long, short)]
-	message: String,
+	message: Option<String>,
 	/// The constructor arguments, encoded as strings.


Suggested change

/// The constructor arguments, encoded as strings.

/// The message arguments, encoded as strings.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:24:01Z

crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs

 	/// The constructor arguments, encoded as strings.
-	#[clap(long, num_args = 0..)]
+	#[clap(long, num_args = 0..,)]


Suggested change

#[clap(long, num_args = 0..,)]

#[clap(short, long, num_args = 0..,)]

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:57:14Z

crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs

+		.collect())
+}
+
+/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor parsing the metadata file.


Suggested change

/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor parsing the metadata file.

/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor.

metadata -> contract artifacts

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:57:38Z

crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs

+/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor parsing the metadata file.
+///
+/// # Arguments
+/// * `path` -  Location path of the project.


Suggested change

/// * `path` - Location path of the project.

/// * `path` - Location path of the project or contract artifact.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:58:39Z

crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs

+}
+
+/// Processes a list of argument values for a specified contract function,
+/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional


Suggested change

/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional

/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T19:58:53Z

crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs

+/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional
+///
+/// # Arguments
+/// * `path` -  Location path of the project.


Suggested change

/// * `path` - Location path of the project.

/// * `path` - Location path of the project or contract artifact.

evilrobot-01 · 2024-11-28T20:04:35Z

crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs


 	let value: BalanceVariant<<DefaultEnvironment as Environment>::Balance> =
 		parse_balance(&call_opts.value)?;

 	let contract: <DefaultConfig as Config>::AccountId = parse_account(&call_opts.contract)?;
+	// Process the argument values input by the user.


Suggested change

// Process the argument values input by the user.

// Process the provided argument values.

From the perspective of a library crate, there is no guarantee that it has been input by a user. It could be read from a file as an example.

AlexD10S added 10 commits September 5, 2024 14:09

feat: guide user for calling a contract

3c9b261

feat: get metadata contract from the contract path

f9e305a

refactor: refactor test and validate address input

5327bf9

fix: apply feedback

83e236c

feat: prompt to have another call and skip questions for queries

7cef633

refactor: use Cli module instead of cliclack

62eefcf

test: unit test pop-cli crate

fee1e26

test: unit contracts crate

6c9aa77

chore: merge main

20360e8

chore: format

cd4c20f

AlexD10S added 3 commits September 10, 2024 11:00

test: refactor and improve test cases

d59259c

fix: fix todos and refactor

c422192

test: fix unit test

22dd4f6

AlexD10S marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2024 09:50

AlexD10S requested review from peterwht and brunopgalvao September 10, 2024 09:54

AlexD10S added ready-for-final-review The PR is ready for final review ready-for-high-level-review The PR needs a high level review and removed ready-for-final-review The PR is ready for final review labels Sep 10, 2024

brunopgalvao reviewed Sep 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

AlexD10S marked this pull request as draft September 11, 2024 15:55

AlexD10S added 5 commits September 11, 2024 18:51

feat: parse types of parameters and display it to the user in the pla…

c8fedef

…ceholder

refactor: error handling for pop call

b0b3573

refactor: display call to be executed after guide and reorder

8e60da8

refactor: when repeat call use same contract values and dont clean sc…

08f2454

…reen

test: add dry-run test

68848be

AlexD10S mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2024

refactor: error messaging #309

Open

AlexD10S marked this pull request as ready for review September 13, 2024 09:45

feat: dev mode to skip certain user prompts

96ed5f1

evilrobot-01 requested changes Nov 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

AlexD10S added 4 commits November 5, 2024 15:39

refactor: test functions, renaming and fix clippy

0e5bf32

refactor: improve devex of pop call contract

29848b4

test: adjust tests to refactor

5f479fa

chore: reset_for_new_call fields

5be201b

AlexD10S requested a review from evilrobot-01 November 6, 2024 14:00

AlexD10S and others added 2 commits November 6, 2024 19:44

fix: build contract if has not been built

e55d1a6

refactor: use command state (#338)

eaad4be

Merged set_up_call_config and guide_user_to_call_contract into a single function. Also adds short symbols for arguments.

al3mart reviewed Nov 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

crates/pop-contracts/src/call/metadata.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexD10S and others added 2 commits November 22, 2024 14:12

Merge branch 'main' into feat-call-ui-contracts

8e04a88

AlexD10S mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2024

feat: allow users to specify custom contract metadata files #347

Merged

test: fix unit test

a6f8247

AlexD10S removed the ready-for-final-review The PR is ready for final review label Nov 25, 2024

AlexD10S added 2 commits November 27, 2024 23:09

fix: clippy

ddba236

chore: after build contract prompt the user if the contract is alread…

d71f35e

…y deployed

al3mart requested changes Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

al3mart reviewed Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

refactor: ensure_contract_built

b0f3e8b

AlexD10S requested a review from al3mart November 28, 2024 15:06

al3mart approved these changes Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

evilrobot-01 requested changes Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: guide user to call a contract #306

feat: guide user to call a contract #306

AlexD10S commented Sep 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

brunopgalvao left a comment •

edited

Loading

AlexD10S commented Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Daanvdplas commented Oct 29, 2024

AlexD10S commented Nov 5, 2024

evilrobot-01 left a comment

evilrobot-01 commented Nov 6, 2024

AlexD10S commented Nov 6, 2024

al3mart left a comment

al3mart commented Nov 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AlexD10S commented Nov 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

al3mart left a comment

al3mart left a comment

evilrobot-01 left a comment

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

evilrobot-01 Nov 28, 2024

		@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
		// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0

		#[cfg(feature = "contract")]

	/// The constructor arguments, encoded as strings.
	/// The message arguments, encoded as strings.

	#[clap(long, num_args = 0..,)]
	#[clap(short, long, num_args = 0..,)]

	/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor parsing the metadata file.
	/// Extracts the information of a smart contract constructor.

	/// * `path` - Location path of the project.
	/// * `path` - Location path of the project or contract artifact.

	/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional
	/// wrapping each value in `Some(...)` or replacing it with `None` if the argument is optional.

	// Process the argument values input by the user.
	// Process the provided argument values.

feat: guide user to call a contract #306

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: guide user to call a contract #306

Conversation

AlexD10S commented Sep 9, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

brunopgalvao left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexD10S commented Sep 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Daanvdplas commented Oct 29, 2024

AlexD10S commented Nov 5, 2024

evilrobot-01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evilrobot-01 commented Nov 6, 2024

AlexD10S commented Nov 6, 2024

al3mart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

al3mart commented Nov 26, 2024 • edited Loading

AlexD10S commented Nov 27, 2024 • edited Loading

al3mart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

al3mart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evilrobot-01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexD10S commented Sep 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

brunopgalvao left a comment •

edited

Loading

AlexD10S commented Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

al3mart commented Nov 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AlexD10S commented Nov 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading