chore: refactor deploy account as wrapper

[ArniStarkware]

Pull Request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Build-related changes
• Documentation content changes
• Other (please describe):

What is the current behavior?

For internal deploy account transaction, the data is inseparable from the implementation.
The data of IntrnalDeployAccountTransaction and of DeployAccountTransaction (on the blockifier) is duplicated.

What is the new behavior?

• Refactor DeployAccountTransaction as a wrapper of IntrnalDeployAccountTransaction while keeping the implementation.

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Other information

---

This change is 

[ArniStarkware]

• chore: define try from snapi executable transaction for account tx #526
• chore: refactor invoke as wrapper #93
• chore: refactor deploy account as wrapper #92 👈
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @ArniStarkware and the rest of your teammates on Graphite

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 9 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/account_transaction.rs line 77 at r2 (raw file):

        match self {
            Self::Declare(tx) => tx.tx.version(),
            Self::DeployAccount(tx) => tx.tx.tx.version(),

Yuck.

Code quote:

            Self::DeployAccount(tx) => tx.tx.tx.version(),

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewed 9 of 9 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @dafnamatsry)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/account_transaction.rs line 77 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

Yuck.

OMG!

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 296 at r2 (raw file):

    // Indicates the presence of the only_query bit in the version.
    pub only_query: bool,
}

Can we use Deref here?
So, we don't need to add tx in all the place?

Code quote:

pub struct DeployAccountTransaction {
    pub tx: starknet_api::executable_transaction::DeployAccountTransaction,
    // Indicates the presence of the only_query bit in the version.
    pub only_query: bool,
}

[ArniStarkware]

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 296 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, MohammadNassar1 (mohammad-starkware) wrote…

Can we use Deref here?
So, we don't need to add tx in all the place?

I am unfamiliar with this design pattern ( I assume this is what you mean).
Please elaborate.

[ArniStarkware]

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 296 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

I am unfamiliar with this design pattern ( I assume this is what you mean).
Please elaborate.

Upon further reading - I think I understand.

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 10 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 296 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

Upon further reading - I think I understand.

Done.

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewed 10 of 10 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @dafnamatsry)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 296 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

Done.

Nice!

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 383 at r3 (raw file):

        };

        match &self.tx.tx {

Deref cannot work here?

Code quote:

&self.tx.tx 

---

crates/starknet_api/src/executable_transaction.rs line 71 at r3 (raw file):

}

impl std::ops::Deref for DeployAccountTransaction {

Suggestion:

Deref

[ArniStarkware]

crates/starknet_api/src/executable_transaction.rs line 71 at r3 (raw file):

}

impl std::ops::Deref for DeployAccountTransaction {

No longer relevant.

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 10 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs line 383 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, MohammadNassar1 (mohammad-starkware) wrote…

Deref cannot work here?

Used a different approch.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.37838% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.83%. Comparing base (495b403) to head (100b093).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transactions.rs	66.66%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #92      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.81%   76.83%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         312      312              
  Lines       34446    34480      +34     
  Branches    34446    34480      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits        26458    26494      +36     
+ Misses       5702     5701       -1     
+ Partials     2286     2285       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewed 10 of 10 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware and @dafnamatsry)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/executable_transaction.rs line 106 at r4 (raw file):

    pub fn contract_address(&self) -> ContractAddress {
        self.contract_address
    }

What do you think about using a macro instead?

Code quote:

    pub fn tx(&self) -> &crate::transaction::DeployAccountTransaction {
        &self.tx
    }

    pub fn tx_hash(&self) -> TransactionHash {
        self.tx_hash
    }

    pub fn contract_address(&self) -> ContractAddress {
        self.contract_address
    }

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 9 of 10 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/executable_transaction.rs line 106 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, MohammadNassar1 (mohammad-starkware) wrote…

What do you think about using a macro instead?

Done.
I did not create a macro just for the ref for tx, as this is just one line. (It will repeat 3 times eventually - we can add it then if we wish).

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dafnamatsry)

[dafnamatsry]

Reviewed 4 of 10 files at r4, 5 of 5 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArniStarkware)

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArniStarkware)

[ArniStarkware]

Merge activity

• Aug 20, 8:36 AM EDT: @ArniStarkware started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Aug 20, 8:36 AM EDT: @ArniStarkware merged this pull request with Graphite.