Introduced by-name deployment and declare-deploy command
#2331
Conversation
integraledelebesgue
requested review from
Arcticae,
ksew1 and
tomek0123456789
as code owners
integraledelebesgue
requested review from
Arcticae
and removed request for
Arcticae
integraledelebesgue
changed the title
declare-deploy command
crates/sncast/src/main.rs
Outdated
| let deploy: DeployResolved = if deploy.class_hash.is_some() { | ||
| deploy.try_into().unwrap() | ||
| } else { | ||
| let contract = | ||
| deploy.build_artifacts_and_get_compiled_contract(cli.json, &cli.profile)?; | ||
| let class_hash = contract.sierra_class_hash; | ||
|
|
||
| if !contract.is_declared(&provider).await? { | ||
| bail!("Contract with class hash {:x} is not declared", class_hash); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| deploy.resolved_with_class_hash(class_hash) | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| deploy.validate()?; | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So now we will explicitly fail if user tries to deploy contract that wasn't declared? What was the previous behavior. This might be worth including in a changelog if this behavior changed.
| @@ -233,6 +247,76 @@ async fn run_async_command( | |||
| Ok(()) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Commands::DeclareDeploy(declare_deploy) => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we explicitly document that declare-deploy behave exactly as deploy if the contract has been already declared?
| use sncast::helpers::{deploy::DeployArgs, fee::FeeToken, rpc::RpcArgs}; | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Args)] | ||
| #[command(about = "Deploy a contract on Starknet")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't it be Declare and deploy a contract on Starknet?
| /// Calldata for the contract constructor | ||
| #[clap(short, long, value_delimiter = ' ', num_args = 1..)] | ||
| pub constructor_calldata: Vec<FieldElement>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What happened to this argument and these below
| @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | |||
| # Joining the Declaration and Deployment Together | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this would be clearer to the users? Or something similar
| # Joining the Declaration and Deployment Together | |
| # Deploying an Undeclared Contract |
| # Joining the Declaration and Deployment Together | ||
|
|
||
| `sncast` allows declaring and deploying contracts through dedicated commands. | ||
| The `declare-deploy` command simplifies this pipeline by performing these two actions one after the other. It is used to declare a contract and deploy it immediately. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The `declare-deploy` command simplifies this pipeline by performing these two actions one after the other. It is used to declare a contract and deploy it immediately. | |
| The `declare-deploy` command simplifies this pipeline by performing these two actions at the same time. It is used to declare a contract and deploy it immediately. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know what you wrote is technically correct, but I think my suggestion is a better description for the user
|
|
||
| ### General Example | ||
|
|
||
| Make sure you have a `Scarb.toml` in your project directory. Suppose we would like to declare and instantly deploy an example contract named `SimpleBalance`, defined in the default project. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we have a contract like that in template. Maybe let's use the name of the contract that's defined there?
… into integraledelebesgue/feature-2279
… into integraledelebesgue/feature-2279
Closes #2279
Introduced changes
sncast deploynow allows to deploy a contract by its name instead of class hash;--contract-nameand--class-hasharguments are mutually exclusivedeclare-deploy, used to quickly combine declaration with deploymentdeclare,declare-deploy- alwaysdeploy- when depolying by nameChecklist
CHANGELOG.md