Add function attributes to JSON ABI #447
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
to handle doc comments and storage annotations
This makes the fuels-rs Rust types more sensible as we can use `Vec<Attribute>` instead of `Option<Vec<Attribute>>`
This reverts commit 2b83464. Turns out it's too hard to introduce an obligatory field like this because of the sway and fuels-rs repos are too interconnected.
Also makes attribute arguments a non-optional array (makes more sense in the implementation)
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
close #446
I went for one of the simplest solutions here. I'd propose to switch to a more complex attribute representation when the need arises -- the current format does not support attributes with parameters. But I'm happy to take suggestions on this as well and switch to a more general schema if someone has potential use cases in mind.
TODOs based on an internal discussion