feat(cli,recs,std-client): update RECS components with v2 key/value schemas #1195
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: b3c16ab The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 26 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
holic
force-pushed
the
holic/recs-updates
branch
from
3f8a77a
to
909737f
Compare
| @@ -27,8 +29,24 @@ export function getRecsV1TableOptions(config: StoreConfig): RecsV1TableOptions { | |||
| name: tableData.name, | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: move user type -> abi type into our config expanding step rather than sprinkled everywhere | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's create an issue for this to keep track of the TODO
| id: ${JSON.stringify(tableId.toHex())}, | ||
| metadata: { | ||
| componentName: ${JSON.stringify(name)}, | ||
| tableName: ${JSON.stringify([namespace, name].join(":"))}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need to run JSON.stringify on these? Aren't they already strings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is generating JS code and namespace/name are technically user generated, so it's a bit safer to encode to string with JSON.stringify rather than wrapping it in quotes
| } else { | ||
| mappings[keccak256(contractId)] = key; | ||
| mappings[ | ||
| keccak256(typeof component.metadata?.contractId === "string" ? component.metadata.contractId : component.id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would this be equivalent?
| keccak256(typeof component.metadata?.contractId === "string" ? component.metadata.contractId : component.id) | |
| keccak256(component.metadata?.contractId ?? component.id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had this before, but TS complained about the contractId value being {} or something? Might be related to Metadata default being Record<string, unknown>
| @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ export type DecodedSystemCall< | |||
| updates: DecodedNetworkComponentUpdate[]; | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| export type ContractComponent = Component<Schema, { contractId: string; tableId?: string }>; | |||
| export type ContractComponent = Component<Schema>; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this break any assumptions of existing code? maybe the ecs browser, i believe it's still in use by sky strife? (cc @Kooshaba)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ECS browser got inlined into sky strife and I fixed a couple of those things in my PR over there: https://github.com/latticexyz/skystrife/pull/167
I don't think so? If you're using plain RECS, this shouldn't have any impact. You'll just need to bump RECS + CLI versions together and rebuild component definitions. It was only Sky Strife (they overloaded |
and move custom RECS schema type default from
undefinedtounknownpulled out of #1113