Merged
Conversation
…blockifier as a test dependency
FabijanC
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2023
Closed
Contributor
Author
|
Closes #1 |
Contributor
Author
|
Closes #2 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Organising the StarknetWrapper was not a goal for this PR, because there is not so much to organise. But the plan is to have one object like StarknetWrapper that holds references to state, blocks, transactions, accounts. Then with all the logic coming to this class it will become larger so the idea is to split the implementation of this StarknetWrapper like object to multiple files, each file will be responsible for a group of "service" methods. Then those methods will interact with the properties of the StarknetWrapper like object. The goal for each method is to combine set of invocations to the members of StarknetWrapper, so we can keep each "service" method not so big.
After running cargo run, there is a warning for [dead_code] for the
statemember ofStarknet struct.This happens, because when constructingStarknetobject, thestatemember is being assigned to the object after all of the changes to it and in this PR there are no interactions with thestateproperty ofStarknet structin any of the other methods (currently there are 2 -new,get_predeployed_accounts)