looking good to me. @cyberthirst can you take a look?

bit unrelated, but if an interface implements other interface and doesn't implement all the methods, we get the following exception:

vyper.exceptions.InterfaceViolation: Contract does not implement all interface functions: foobar()

Contract does not implement.. although it can be triggered via eg vyper -f abi i.vyi

-f interface doesn't include Flags. is it intended?

-f interface doesn't include Flags. is it intended?

Not intended. May be the order in which we merged flag and -f interfave PRs

shouldn't -f interface be basically an identity when called on interface files?

import ITest2

implements: ITest2

def bar() -> uint256:
    ...

def foo() -> uint8:
    ...


def foobar() -> uint8:
    ...

outputs:

# Functions

@external
def bar() -> uint256:
    ...


@external
def foo() -> uint8:
    ...


@external
def foobar() -> uint8:
    ...

ie implements is lost in the translation

shouldn't -f interface be basically an identity when called on interface files?

import ITest2

implements: ITest2

def bar() -> uint256:
    ...

def foo() -> uint8:
    ...


def foobar() -> uint8:
    ...

outputs:

# Functions

@external
def bar() -> uint256:
    ...


@external
def foo() -> uint8:
    ...


@external
def foobar() -> uint8:
    ...

ie implements is lost in the translation

also, if ITest2.vyi contains a struct (or flag), then those don't propagate for -f interface - not sure whether that's intentional

 vyper -f external_interface tests/custom/ITest.vyi

# External Interfaces
interface Itest:
    def bar() -> uint256: nonpayable
    def foo() -> uint8: nonpayable
    def foobar() -> uint8: nonpayable

name discrepancy - Itest vs ITest

this looks ok to me. @cyberthirst what did we decide about the -f interface behavior here?

i think for -f interface we should not require it to be the identity. it should spit out something that is more or less independent from the file's codebase/context.

but it's not that important. if we can't reach consensus, we can always block the behavior.

# test__interface.vyi

@external
def foo():
    ...

-f external_interface

IndexError: string index out of range
Error compiling: tests/custom/test__interface.vyi

should crash on name = "".join([x[0].upper() + x[1:] for x in stem.split("_")])

i think for -f interface we should not require it to be the identity. it should spit out something that is more or less independent from the file's codebase/context.

but it's not that important. if we can't reach consensus, we can always block the behavior.

yeah this sounds reasonable, i was reporting rather for completness

say we have

flag Foo:
    Blah

@external
def foo() -> Foo:
    ...

then with -f external_interface we'd get:

# External Interfaces
interface Ifile:
    def foo() -> flag Foo('Blah'): nonpayable

which is not valid syntax, is that intentional?

we can import stateful modules to the vyi files and eg call initializes on them:

# ifile.vyi
import test

initializes: test

@external
def foo(a: test.Foo) -> test.Foo:
    ...

# test.vy

c: uint256

flag Foo:
    Blah

@external
def foo() -> Foo:
    return Foo.Blah

works eg with -f annotated_ast

say we have

flag Foo:
    Blah

@external
def foo() -> Foo:
    ...

then with -f external_interface we'd get:

# External Interfaces
interface Ifile:
    def foo() -> flag Foo('Blah'): nonpayable

which is not valid syntax, is that intentional?

i think we should fix this -- there was a similar issue with repr for interfaces and/or structs iirc

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.17%. Comparing base (c8691ac) to head (4c476ad).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4290      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.31%   90.17%   -1.14%     
==========================================
  Files         113      113              
  Lines       16065    16085      +20     
  Branches     2705     2711       +6     
==========================================
- Hits        14670    14505     -165     
- Misses        964     1109     +145     
- Partials      431      471      +40     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I’ve made the changes. This should be good for another review.