`CallBuilder` delegated calls API #1133

VargSupercolony · 2022-02-15T13:35:07Z

This PR adds the possibility to make delegated calls into ink!. To achieve this, we:

Add seal_delegate_call unstable interface import
Refactor CallBuilder to two types of calls: Call (meaning cross-contract call) and DelegateCall (meaning delegated calls). This is a breaking change, as now the users must specify call_type on the builder manually, as opposed to it being always Call :)
Add invoke_contract_delegate & eval_contract_delegate functions to backend trait & impls: we call those functions when making a delegated call
Rework codegen for cross-contract calls (add set_call_type)
Update docs in the ink! itself
Update proxy example, rework it to use build_call with DelegateCall call type, add upgradeable flipper to showcase simple upgradeable contract example.

Massive thanks to @yarikbratashchuk for providing initial PoCs & ideas for the implementation.

xgreenx · 2022-02-16T09:26:37Z

crates/env/src/engine/off_chain/impls.rs

        unimplemented!("off-chain environment does not support contract invocation")
    }

+    #[allow(clippy::type_complexity)]


Maybe we can create an alias to avoid type_complexity everywhere=)

Nope, the compiler gives a warning that the type bounds are not checked.

So we can do the following:

type CallParamsTypedef<T, A> = CallParams<T, DelegateCall<T, <T as Environment>::Hash>, A, ()>; // -- snip --- fn invoke_contract_delegate<T, Args>( &mut self, params: &CallParamsTypedef<T, Args>, ) -> Result<()> where T: Environment, Args: scale::Encode, { let _code_hash = params.code_hash(); unimplemented!("off-chain environment does not support contract invocation") }

Notice that in the typedef we used fully qualified syntax to specify the trait being used. We should be able to do this everywhere in this PR

examples/proxy/lib.rs

athei · 2022-02-23T10:49:46Z

Can you please satisfy the CI?

VargSupercolony · 2022-02-23T11:01:03Z

@athei I will fix the errors I get now, but I remember some tests were failing in the ink-waterfall testing job. Is it fixable by doing fixes into my PR, or are there any external tests that are run not from ink?

athei · 2022-02-23T11:12:17Z

The ink waterfall doesn't even start because it is failing before it comes to it. ink-waterfall only runs if the basic tests are successful.

ink-waterfall will fail because the node is too old and you added new functionality to examples which are deployed by the waterfall. I will upgrade the node it so it will be successful tomorrow (waterfall uses latest master of substrate-contracts-node but only updated nightly).

For the new examples you added we would need manually ad them to the ink-waterfall so that they are also deployed and testes there. But first we need to fix CI here.

codecov-commenter · 2022-02-23T11:58:44Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1133 (6321e3f) into master (3122bad) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 3.44%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1133      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.43%   78.39%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         231      231              
  Lines        8760     8760              
==========================================
- Hits         6871     6867       -4     
- Misses       1889     1893       +4

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crates/env/src/backend.rs	`83.33% <ø> (ø)`
crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
crates/env/src/call/create_builder.rs	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
crates/env/src/types.rs	`22.22% <ø> (ø)`
...odegen/src/generator/as_dependency/call_builder.rs	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...ng/codegen/src/generator/trait_def/call_builder.rs	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
crates/lang/src/env_access.rs	`12.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...rates/lang/tests/ui/chain_extension/E-01-simple.rs	`2.70% <0.00%> (+0.20%)`	⬆️
crates/env/src/api.rs	`31.81% <7.40%> (ø)`
crates/env/src/engine/off_chain/impls.rs	`42.50% <9.52%> (ø)`
... and 4 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3122bad...6321e3f. Read the comment docs.

VargSupercolony · 2022-02-23T12:21:53Z

@athei, please see that the CI completes before I update to the latest master.

athei · 2022-02-23T14:37:23Z

examples/proxy/lib.rs

+    const PROXY_FIELDS_STORAGE_KEY: [u8; 32] = ink_lang::blake2x256!("ProxyFields");
+
+    impl SpreadLayout for ProxyFields {
+        const FOOTPRINT: u64 =
+            <AccountId as SpreadLayout>::FOOTPRINT + <Hash as SpreadLayout>::FOOTPRINT;
+        const REQUIRES_DEEP_CLEAN_UP: bool = false;
+
+        fn pull_spread(_: &mut KeyPtr) -> Self {
+            let mut ptr = KeyPtr::from(Key::from(PROXY_FIELDS_STORAGE_KEY));
+            Self {
+                delegate_to: SpreadLayout::pull_spread(&mut ptr),
+                admin: SpreadLayout::pull_spread(&mut ptr),
+            }
+        }
+
+        fn push_spread(&self, _: &mut KeyPtr) {
+            let mut ptr = KeyPtr::from(Key::from(PROXY_FIELDS_STORAGE_KEY));
+            SpreadLayout::push_spread(&self.delegate_to, &mut ptr);
+            SpreadLayout::push_spread(&self.admin, &mut ptr);
+        }
+
+        fn clear_spread(&self, _: &mut KeyPtr) {
+            let mut ptr = KeyPtr::from(Key::from(PROXY_FIELDS_STORAGE_KEY));
+            SpreadLayout::clear_spread(&self.delegate_to, &mut ptr);
+            SpreadLayout::clear_spread(&self.admin, &mut ptr);
+        }
+    }


I think you need to repeat some docs on this impl why it is needed (to not conflict with the storage of the called into contract).

This is kind of ugly. But it could be resolved by adding a new attribute to the #[ink(storage)] macro that allows changing the root key, right?

Yep, but maybe it is okay for now because it will be fixed with #1134

athei · 2022-02-23T15:04:54Z

examples/proxy/upgradeable_flipper/lib.rs

+
+    #[ink(storage)]
+    pub struct Flipper {
+        value: Upgradable<bool, NotInitialized>,


Please add docs why and what this Upgradable does. It is an example after all. The point is teaching things.

The whole point of this example is to teach people how to write upgradeable contracts.

athei · 2022-02-23T17:12:07Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

 {
-    /// The account ID of the to-be-called smart contract.
-    callee: E::AccountId,
+    env: PhantomData<fn() -> E>,


Please call it _phantom and move it to the bottom of the struct. Please don't skip doc comments.

athei · 2022-02-23T17:58:46Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

+    #[allow(dead_code)] // it is used in the `invoke_contract_delegate` / `eval_contract_delegate` functions.
    pub(crate) fn exec_input(&self) -> &ExecutionInput<Args> {
        &self.exec_input
    }


Is this duplication necessary? Couldn't you have a single impl block where you put the shared functions with a generic CallType? Same for call_flags.

athei · 2022-02-23T18:07:43Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

+/// The default call type for cross-contract calls. Performs a cross-contract call to `callee`
+/// with gas limit `gas_limit`, transferring `transferred_value` of currency.
+pub struct Call<E, Callee, GasLimit, TransferredValue> {
    env: PhantomData<fn() -> E>,


Like above should be called _phantom.

cmichi · 2022-03-01T06:46:25Z

@VargSupercolony Thanks for the PR. The ink-waterfall CI stage does not succeed because you modified the flipper example and the waterfall tests this with some defined interactions, which are no longer valid with your PR.

I would prefer if you leave the existing proxy example intact and instead create a new one upgradeable-contract. Could you do that please?

cmichi · 2022-03-01T07:16:34Z

@VargSupercolony We're shaping up for a stable ink! release ‒ hopefully this week. It would be awesome to have this PR in there! Do you think you can implement the comments this week?

armyhaylenko · 2022-03-01T07:21:18Z

hey @cmichi @athei, writing from my personal acc as I don't have much internet access. I will not be able to work with the PR in the coming days because of war, and I parted my ways with Supercolony, so I think someone will pick it up - probably @xgreenx :) but anything you need from me - please mention this acc, this is my personal one

xgreenx · 2022-03-01T07:22:58Z

@VargSupercolony We're shaping up for a stable ink! release ‒ hopefully this week. It would be awesome to have this PR in there! Do you think you can implement the comments this week?

hey @cmichi @athei, writing from my personal acc as I don't have much internet access. I will not be able to work with the PR in the coming days because of war, and I parted my ways with Supercolony, so I think someone will pick it up - probably @xgreenx :) but anything you need from me - please mention this acc, this is my personal one

Yes, I will work on it, I will try to update it today=)

xgreenx · 2022-03-01T17:27:04Z

@cmichi I returned the proxy example back, but ink-waterfall still fails=(

cmichi · 2022-03-02T07:21:52Z

@cmichi I returned the proxy example back, but ink-waterfall still fails=(

I'm still looking into it, but AFAIU it has nothing to do with this PR, the tests actually all run through. The CI only complains when shutting down. I currently suspect some combination of protected variables and first time external contribution.

Let's ignore the ink-waterfall tests here for now.

cmichi · 2022-03-02T07:53:42Z

@xgreenx I just merged #1144, could you merge master into this PR? There will unfortunately be a number of conflicts to fix.

cmichi · 2022-03-02T09:56:53Z

examples/upgradable-contract/Cargo.toml

+# Needed until https://github.com/paritytech/ink/issues/364 is resolved.
+[profile.release]
+overflow-checks = false
+


Suggested change

# Needed until https://github.com/paritytech/ink/issues/364 is resolved.

[profile.release]

overflow-checks = false

No longer needed since #1049.

cmichi · 2022-03-02T12:32:21Z

examples/upgradable-contract/README.md

+   You will receive the respective `upgradeable_flipper.contract` bundle in the `examples/upgradable-contract/upgradeable_flipper/target/ink/` folder.
+
+   In order to perform migrations and have proxy working for contracts with different storage
+   layouts, we use the [`Upgradeable`](upgradeable_flipper/upgradeable.rs) type wrapper, which ensures


We have the term "upgradeable" and "upgradable" in this PR. @ascjones 🇬🇧 Wdyt?

I will rename everything to upgradeable

We've had this debate over on the Substrate side, and American spelling should be used 🇺🇸

paritytech-cicd-pr · 2022-03-02T13:59:52Z

🦑 📈 ink! Example Contracts ‒ Changes Report 📉 🦑

⚠️ The ink! master is ahead of your branch, this might skew the comparison data below.

These are the results when building the examples/* contracts from this branch with cargo-contract 0.17.0-638ad57 and comparing them to ink! master:

	Δ Optimized Size	Δ Used Gas	Total Optimized Size	Total Used Gas
`accumulator`	+1.28 K		1.28 K
`adder`	+2.28 K		2.28 K
`contract-terminate`	+1.23 K		1.23 K	214_418
`contract-transfer`	+8.37 K		8.37 K	14_418
`delegator`	+6.25 K	+145	6.25 K	46_649
`dns`	+9.62 K		9.62 K	43_254
`erc1155`	+27.49 K		27.49 K	86_508
`erc20`	+9.09 K		9.09 K	43_254
`erc721`	+14.37 K		14.37 K	115_344
`flipper`	+1.55 K		1.55 K	14_418
`incrementer`	+1.49 K		1.49 K	14_418
`multisig`	+26.13 K	+2	26.13 K	94_109
`proxy`	+3.17 K	+30	3.17 K	29_593
`rand-extension`			4.38 K	14_418
`subber`	+2.29 K		2.29 K
`trait-erc20`	+9.36 K		9.36 K	43_254
`trait-flipper`	+1.33 K		1.33 K	14_418
`trait-incrementer`	+1.42 K		1.42 K	28_836
`upgradeable-contract`	+3.22 K		3.22 K

Link to the run | Last update: Fri Mar 4 09:14:40 CET 2022

cmichi · 2022-03-02T14:03:00Z

I've found the issue which caused the ink-waterfall stage to fail!

(It was because this PR adds a new example, which is not yet tested in the waterfall. The regression bot which posted above went 💥 in that case.)

cmichi · 2022-03-02T18:04:20Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

+    fn allocate_packed(&mut self, at: &Key) {
+        <T as PackedAllocate>::allocate_packed(&mut self.inner, at)
+    }
+}


😱 Wow that's a lot of boilerplate code for the storage. @xgreenx Do you think this will reduce significantly with #1134 ?

Of course, we will use only one trait(maybe two), and that trait will be automatically implemented by #[ink::storage_ext]. All keys will be managed by the user during the definition of the struct, so the code should look tiny=)

Yeah all of this boilerplate is only needed because the current system doesn't allow to change the contract root key without manually implementing SpreadLayout.

The boilerplate, oh my 🙈

HCastano

Only took a quick peek today, will need to spend more time on it later in the week.

One thing that comes to mind is that we should really look for ways to simplify that example contract. If I were a newcomer to ink! and saw this as the base-case for upgradeable contracts I'd definitely be scared off

crates/env/src/api.rs

HCastano · 2022-03-03T04:04:47Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

+    fn allocate_packed(&mut self, at: &Key) {
+        <T as PackedAllocate>::allocate_packed(&mut self.inner, at)
+    }
+}


The boilerplate, oh my 🙈

xgreenx · 2022-03-03T06:42:39Z

One thing that comes to mind is that we should really look for ways to simplify that example contract. If I were a newcomer to ink! and saw this as the base-case for upgradeable contracts I'd definitely be scared off

With #1134 we can remove the Upgradeable struct. But we should introduce a new argument for #[ink::storage]. The problem is that in the proxy pattern the constructor of the callee contract is not called and storage is not initialized. It requires some workaround because nothing is stored under the storage key. For that, we created the Upgradeable wrapper.

But with #1134 we need to provide a way how to init the contract's storae if is not initialized. For example, argument in macro #[ink::storage(init = default())] or #[ink::storage(default_if_not_exist = true)]

…invoke_contract`, `invoke_contract_delegate`

Fixes according comments in PR.

HCastano · 2022-03-04T18:16:46Z

@xgreenx can you avoid force-pushing PRs? It makes pulling the changes down easier, and also makes it harder to see what commits are new.

It's fine to merge master in order to keep up to date

xgreenx · 2022-03-04T18:21:02Z

@xgreenx can you avoid force-pushing PRs? It makes pulling the changes down easier, and also makes it harder to see what commits are new.

It's fine to merge master in order to keep up to date

I'm only forcing it to rebase to master.
During each merge with the master, I need to resolve conflicts=) That means without rebasing I need to resolve all previous conflicts again and a new one.

I will try to not force for simple conflicts=)

xgreenx · 2022-03-04T18:23:34Z

ink-waterfall fails because of a new test that is using builder=(

HCastano

In the right direction, but needs a bit of clean-up

crates/env/src/api.rs

HCastano · 2022-03-04T18:22:04Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

 /// # type Balance = <DefaultEnvironment as Environment>::Balance;
 /// build_call::<DefaultEnvironment>()
-///     .set_call_type(Call::new().set_callee(AccountId::from([0x42; 32])).set_gas_limit(5000).set_transferred_value(10))
+///     .set_call_type(Call::new().callee(AccountId::from([0x42; 32])).gas_limit(5000).transferred_value(10))


HCastano · 2022-03-04T18:48:31Z

crates/env/src/engine/off_chain/impls.rs

        unimplemented!("off-chain environment does not support contract invocation")
    }

+    #[allow(clippy::type_complexity)]


So we can do the following:

type CallParamsTypedef<T, A> = CallParams<T, DelegateCall<T, <T as Environment>::Hash>, A, ()>; // -- snip --- fn invoke_contract_delegate<T, Args>( &mut self, params: &CallParamsTypedef<T, Args>, ) -> Result<()> where T: Environment, Args: scale::Encode, { let _code_hash = params.code_hash(); unimplemented!("off-chain environment does not support contract invocation") }

Notice that in the typedef we used fully qualified syntax to specify the trait being used. We should be able to do this everywhere in this PR

HCastano · 2022-03-04T18:53:21Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

+    pub(crate) fn gas_limit(&self) -> &Gas {
+        &self.call_type.gas_limit


Why change this to return a reference? It's Copy anyways

To be consistent with code around)

I don't think it makes sense in this case. We just end up dereferencing Gas immediately anyways

Then we can return E::Balance from transferred_value=) It is u128

Sure, but let's leave that for a follow up

crates/env/src/engine/on_chain/impls.rs

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

HCastano · 2022-03-07T01:09:10Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

+    const REQUIRES_DEEP_CLEAN_UP: bool = <T as SpreadLayout>::REQUIRES_DEEP_CLEAN_UP;
+
+    fn pull_spread(ptr: &mut KeyPtr) -> Self {
+        if ink_env::get_contract_storage::<T>(ptr.advance_by(0))


Suggested change

if ink_env::get_contract_storage::<T>(ptr.advance_by(0))

if ink_env::get_contract_storage::<T>(ptr.key())

key returns the previous key, we need here an actual key, so we are forcing advance_by(0).

HCastano · 2022-03-07T01:20:44Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

+impl<T: SpreadAllocate + PackedLayout> SpreadAllocate for Upgradeable<T, Initialized> {
+    fn allocate_spread(ptr: &mut KeyPtr) -> Self {
+        Upgradeable::new(<T as SpreadAllocate>::allocate_spread(ptr))
+    }
+}
+
+impl<T: SpreadAllocate + PackedLayout> SpreadAllocate for Upgradeable<T, NotInitialized> {
+    fn allocate_spread(ptr: &mut KeyPtr) -> Self {
+        Upgradeable::new(<T as SpreadAllocate>::allocate_spread(ptr))
+    }
+}
+
+impl<T: PackedAllocate> PackedAllocate for Upgradeable<T, Initialized> {
+    fn allocate_packed(&mut self, at: &Key) {
+        <T as PackedAllocate>::allocate_packed(&mut self.inner, at)
+    }
+}
+
+impl<T: PackedAllocate> PackedAllocate for Upgradeable<T, NotInitialized> {
+    fn allocate_packed(&mut self, at: &Key) {
+        <T as PackedAllocate>::allocate_packed(&mut self.inner, at)
+    }
+}


Can we not make these generic over Upgradeable<T, S> the implementations are the same for Initialized and NotInitialized?

No, we can't, because SpreadAllocate requires SpreadAllocate. SpreadAllocate is implemented only for Upgradeable<T, NotInitialized> and Upgradeable<T, Initialized> so we can't create a generic implementation.

examples/upgradeable-contract/upgradeable-flipper/upgradeable.rs

cmichi

Thanks!

The failing ink-waterfall CI is because it tests some additional ink! examples which don't make sense to be committed into the ink! repo, they don't use the new API yet. So the failing CI stage can be ignored here. It's this one: https://github.com/paritytech/ink-waterfall/blob/master/examples/contract-introspection/lib.rs.

HCastano

So I think the biggest thing left is fixing any merge conflicts from #1165, and we should be good

HCastano · 2022-03-07T20:00:08Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

-    return_type: RetType,
+/// The default call type for cross-contract calls. Performs a cross-contract call to `callee`
+/// with gas limit `gas_limit`, transferring `transferred_value` of currency.
+pub struct Call<E: Environment> {


Yeah I like this more actually 👍

HCastano · 2022-03-07T20:09:33Z

crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs

+    pub(crate) fn gas_limit(&self) -> &Gas {
+        &self.call_type.gas_limit


I don't think it makes sense in this case. We just end up dereferencing Gas immediately anyways

HCastano · 2022-03-07T20:19:27Z

crates/lang/src/env_access.rs

-pub struct EnvAccess<'a, T> {
-    /// Tricks the Rust compiler into thinking that we use `T`.
-    marker: PhantomData<fn() -> &'a T>,
+pub struct EnvAccess<'a, E> {


I get why you renamed T to E, but in the future can you at least split this out into its own commit? It adds a lot of unnecessary noise. Tbh it should've been done in a follow-up PR

HCastano · 2022-03-07T20:22:01Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/README.md

+   storage locations, while also tracking the initialization status (e.g., we uploaded 
+   the code on chain, but haven't called the constructor).
+
+3. Build the proxy contract:


If you change all of these numbers to 1 Github is smart enough to render the the numbers in the correct order. Makes it easier when change are introduced (no need to update the entire list)

HCastano · 2022-03-07T20:22:29Z

examples/upgradeable-contract/lib.rs

+    struct ProxyFields {
+        /// The `Hash` of a contract code where any call that does not match a
+        /// selector of this contract is forwarded to.
+        delegate_to: Hash,


Sorry I should've been more explicit here, I like the forward_to term more

# Conflicts: # crates/env/src/api.rs # crates/env/src/backend.rs # crates/env/src/call/call_builder.rs # crates/env/src/engine/off_chain/impls.rs # crates/env/src/engine/on_chain/impls.rs # crates/lang/src/env_access.rs # crates/lang/tests/ui/contract/fail/message-input-non-codec.stderr # crates/lang/tests/ui/trait_def/fail/message_input_non_codec.stderr # examples/erc1155/lib.rs # examples/multisig/lib.rs

…from the PR

HCastano

Okay, I think this is good to go.

There are some things we should improve in follow-ups, but this will at least let the community play with these new mechanisms.

Thanks again Green!

VargSupercolony requested review from HCastano, Robbepop, ascjones and cmichi as code owners February 15, 2022 13:35

VargSupercolony mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2022

delegate_call API #1109

Closed

xgreenx reviewed Feb 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

athei linked an issue Feb 16, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request

delegate_call API #1109

Closed

athei reviewed Feb 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

xgreenx force-pushed the varg-delegate-calls branch from cc95ca4 to b42ed34 Compare March 1, 2022 15:50

xgreenx force-pushed the varg-delegate-calls branch from e8d1722 to 5d2c14b Compare March 2, 2022 07:56

cmichi mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2022

Release ink! 3.0.0 #1160

Merged

cmichi reviewed Mar 2, 2022

View reviewed changes

HCastano reviewed Mar 3, 2022

View reviewed changes

VargSupercolony and others added 15 commits March 4, 2022 19:54

[env] update proxy example

ea23605

[env] fix build_call compilation errors

1e56bc2

[env] allow complex types

77913ee

[lang] fix doc-tests for eval_contract, eval_contract_delegate, `…

71eedb0

…invoke_contract`, `invoke_contract_delegate`

[examples] Add description to ProxyFields struct

8c2096d

[examples] Change version for upgradeable_flipper

48a9155

Rebased to latest master.

01c195f

Fixes according comments in PR.

Fix tests

ae02e5e

Fix tests

9466881

Fix tests

c1a83fb

Changes according comments in PR.

fd0bb38

"upgradeable" everywhere instead of "upgradable"

26f558e

Changes according the suggestion in the PR

d05ce2a

Fix clippy

2fb5cb7

Fixes according Cmichi's comments

8057cc6

xgreenx force-pushed the varg-delegate-calls branch from 91b36cd to 8057cc6 Compare March 4, 2022 17:54

HCastano reviewed Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

Fixes according HCastano's comments

6321e3f

cmichi approved these changes Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

HCastano reviewed Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

xgreenx added 2 commits March 8, 2022 00:09

Fixed the bugs after merging with master. Applied last suggestions …

e72ba33

…from the PR

HCastano approved these changes Mar 8, 2022

View reviewed changes

HCastano merged commit f4252a0 into use-ink:master Mar 8, 2022

This was referenced Mar 8, 2022

Fix the build after updating of the ink with delegated calls Supercolony-net/openbrush-contracts#81

Merged

We forgot to add an ability to alter the arguments of the call #1169

Merged

TtomaS7 mentioned this pull request May 20, 2022

OpenBrush Third Grant(follow up 2) w3f/Grants-Program#921

Merged

10 tasks

	# Needed until https://github.com/paritytech/ink/issues/364 is resolved.
	[profile.release]
	overflow-checks = false

		pub(crate) fn gas_limit(&self) -> &Gas {
		&self.call_type.gas_limit

	if ink_env::get_contract_storage::<T>(ptr.advance_by(0))
	if ink_env::get_contract_storage::<T>(ptr.key())

CallBuilder delegated calls API #1133

CallBuilder delegated calls API #1133

Uh oh!

Conversation

VargSupercolony commented Feb 15, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

athei commented Feb 23, 2022

Uh oh!

VargSupercolony commented Feb 23, 2022

Uh oh!

athei commented Feb 23, 2022

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 23, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

VargSupercolony commented Feb 23, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cmichi commented Mar 1, 2022

Uh oh!

cmichi commented Mar 1, 2022

Uh oh!

armyhaylenko commented Mar 1, 2022

Uh oh!

xgreenx commented Mar 1, 2022

Uh oh!

xgreenx commented Mar 1, 2022

Uh oh!

cmichi commented Mar 2, 2022

Uh oh!

cmichi commented Mar 2, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

paritytech-cicd-pr commented Mar 2, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦑 📈 ink! Example Contracts ‒ Changes Report 📉 🦑

Uh oh!

cmichi commented Mar 2, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xgreenx Mar 2, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

HCastano left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

`CallBuilder` delegated calls API #1133

`CallBuilder` delegated calls API #1133

codecov-commenter commented Feb 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

paritytech-cicd-pr commented Mar 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

cmichi commented Mar 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

xgreenx Mar 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

xgreenx commented Mar 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading