feat: new PublishTemplate instruction

[ksrichard]

Description

As part of #1207 , this PR contains the basic instruction and skeleton for instruction processing. There is a validation implemented for the new PublishTemplate instruction (where also we validate size of wasm binary).

Please note that in this PR there is no new substates or anything generated yet.

Motivation and Context

#1207

How Has This Been Tested?

Send a new transaction to VN:

    let AccountGetResponse { account, public_key, } = client
        .accounts_get(ComponentAddressOrName::Name("acc"))
        .await?;
    let account_component_address = account.address
        .as_component_address()
        .expect("Failed to get component address");

    // publish wasm template
    let wasm_binary = fs::read("./templates/counter/target/wasm32-unknown-unknown/release/counter.wasm")?;
    let tx = Transaction::builder()
        .fee_transaction_pay_from_component(account_component_address, Amount(1000))
        .publish_template(wasm_binary)
        .build_unsigned_transaction();
    let transaction_submit_req = TransactionSubmitRequest {
        transaction: tx,
        signing_key_index: Some(account.key_index),
        detect_inputs: true,
        detect_inputs_use_unversioned: true,
        proof_ids: vec![],
        autofill_inputs: vec![],
    };
    let resp = client.submit_transaction(transaction_submit_req).await?;
    println!("Submit RESP: {resp:?}");
    let wait_req = TransactionWaitResultRequest {
        transaction_id: resp.transaction_id,
        timeout_secs: Some(120),
    };
    let wait_resp = client.wait_transaction_result(wait_req).await?;
    println!("TX RESP: {wait_resp:?}");

Check printed out result and transaction result on UIs.

Examples:

• Invalid wasm template binary
  

• Size exceeding wasm template (manually set a lower limit to check error)
  

• Success
  

What process can a PR reviewer use to test or verify this change?

Breaking Changes

• None
• Requires data directory to be deleted
• Other - Please specify

[github-actions]

Test Results (CI)

561 tests   - 21   561 ✅  - 21   1h 22m 46s ⏱️ - 1h 35m 28s
 54 suites  - 11     0 💤 ± 0 
  1 files    -  1     0 ❌ ± 0 

Results for commit b3ace13. ± Comparison against base commit 4d1117b.

This pull request removes 21 tests.

Scenario: Claim and transfer confidential assets via wallet daemon: tests/features/wallet_daemon.feature:88:3
Scenario: Claim base layer burn funds with wallet daemon: tests/features/claim_burn.feature:9:3
Scenario: Concurrent calls to the Counter template: tests/features/concurrency.feature:7:3
Scenario: Confidential transfer to unexisting account: tests/features/transfer.feature:160:3
Scenario: Counter template registration and invocation multiple times: tests/features/counter.feature:48:3
Scenario: Counter template registration and invocation once: tests/features/counter.feature:8:3
Scenario: Create account and transfer faucets via wallet daemon: tests/features/wallet_daemon.feature:8:3
Scenario: Create and mint account NFT: tests/features/wallet_daemon.feature:130:3
Scenario: Create resource and mint in one transaction: tests/features/nft.feature:81:3
Scenario: Double Claim base layer burn funds with wallet daemon. should fail: tests/features/claim_burn.feature:48:3
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[sdbondi]

Consensus and execution must remain decoupled.

I see you're using consensus constants to dictate the maximum permitted size of a template.

I suggest creating a TransactionProcessorConfig struct that you pass into the processor that we can configure using consensus constants in the validator/indexer's bootstrap.rs. The network can also go into that config as well as any future config.

pub struct TransactionProcessorConfig {
   pub network: Network,
  pub template_binary_max_size_bytes: usize
}

[ksrichard]

okay, totally makes sense, let me update

[ksrichard]

just pushed

[sdbondi]

LGTM - you need to regenerate typescript bindings

[ksrichard]

@sdbondi I just pushed changes, now it should be okay

[sdbondi]

utACK