feat: allow users to specify custom contract metadata files #347
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, think there can be some quick improvements to the code to improve readability and reduce complexity.
As mentioned elsewhere, it seems as though any contract artifact can be used (.contract, .json, .wasm), so perhaps the terminology should be adapted accodingly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Used this contract to test it out - https://github.com/r0gue-io/faucet-contract
⚙ pop call contract --path ./metadata/faucet.contract --contract 5CwTqjdN28XfcTGsaC5VbyxP8wHAfbaKMwhhGA9bNJjaSDUJ --message drip --url wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz/ --suri //Alice --dry_run
│
└ Anyhow error: Error invoking `cargo metadata` for ./metadata/faucet.contract/Cargo.toml
It seems that we are failing to resolve paths correctly when a location to an artifact is passed directly instead of pointing to a directory.
Regarding the discussion between metadata or artifact. Knowing that the CLI should work just fine regardless of being pointed to a metadata file or the code or the bundle artifact. Maybe artifact does a better job fitting all scenarios.
We also use "artifacts" wording after a successful contract build.
Allow the user to pass the location of the metadata instead of the path of the contract project. There might be cases where the user only has access to the metadata.
Mentioned in #306 (review)