Updates from near-api-js

[volovyks]

No description provided.

[ailisp]

Is there specific reason to do these renames? I'm curious about why rename here instead of export this and import and change usage on near-api-js side, since camelCase is more common in js

[frol]

I have the same concern about the snake case in JS code (while I prefer it, I still follow the style that is common in the target language, and camelCase is what used in JS).

@vgrichina Also, I wonder if we can remove borsh-js build from the repo? I usually find it to be a source of merge conflicts, bloating the sources, and inconsistencies if contributors forget to build or include the generated files in their PR.

[frol]

This looks like a hack. Can we use ts? Can we write the tests in TS?

[frol]

@volovyk-s I want to point out that this repo also contains the Rust implementation of Borsh, and thus lib folder in the root is a bit misleading.

@ailisp @evgenykuzyakov @nearmax Are there any objections to renaming this repo to borsh-rs, extracting the JS/TS implementation into borsh-js repository, and the landing page to borsh repository?

[volovyks]

Is there specific reason to do these renames? I'm curious about why rename here instead of export this and import and change usage on near-api-js side, since camelCase is more common in js

@ailisp @frol Yep, we are using camel case everywhere, so I have changed it back. I'm not sure why these changes were added in near-api-js

[volovyks]

@volovyk-s I want to point out that this repo also contains the Rust implementation of Borsh, and thus lib folder in the root is a bit misleading.

@ailisp @evgenykuzyakov @nearmax Are there any objections to renaming this repo to borsh-rs, extracting the JS/TS implementation into borsh-js repository, and the landing page to borsh repository?

It was renamed because borsh-js is also confusing. It's not a separate JS implementation, it's just a build artifact of TS subproject. BTW, @frol , JS artifacts can not be deleted, because some developers can use this repo instead of NPM package (like here).

It would be nice to move TS/JS version to a separate repo.
Pros:

• no confusions with lib or borsh-js folders (thnx @frol )
• it's confusing for the Rust developers to see ~10 unrelated files in the root directory
• separated CI checks
• separate README.md in the root folder (easier onboarding of new users)
  Cons:
• partially destroyed Git history

[frol]

Cons: partially destroyed Git history

Git history can be preserved if we just clone this repo and clean up unrelated parts as a regular commit. Yes, we will have borsh-rs in the history in two places, but overall it should be fine.

[ailisp]

I also vote for separate borsh-rs

[vgrichina]

Cons: partially destroyed Git history

Git history can be preserved if we just clone this repo and clean up unrelated parts as a regular commit. Yes, we will have borsh-rs in the history in two places, but overall it should be fine.

can be done even better with git-filter-branch https://manishearth.github.io/blog/2017/03/05/understanding-git-filter-branch/ (will result in smaller repo, but history essentially will be rewritten)

[vgrichina]

@volovyk-s let's keep only actually necessary globals for borsh

[frol]

@volovyk-s May I ask you to extract the relevant history into https://github.com/near/borsh-js and https://github.com/near/borsh-rs? (Just push master branches there and I will switch the default from main to master branch on Github)

[volovyks]

@volovyk-s May I ask you to extract the relevant history into https://github.com/near/borsh-js and https://github.com/near/borsh-rs? (Just push master branches there and I will switch the default from main to master branch on Github)

Ok, I will do that after this merge.