feat: add bytecode_address from CallInputs to Contract during construction. #1568
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
vandenbogart
changed the title
rakita
reviewed
Jun 27, 2024
Member
rakita
left a comment
rakita
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems reasonable to add.
But would make bytecode_address a Option in a similar way as the Contract hash is, and would put it to None if it is a creation call.
rakita
reviewed
Jun 30, 2024
| bytecode, | ||
| hash, | ||
| contract_address, | ||
| None, |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be added from env.tx.kind if kind is To we should set that address.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I get your meaning. I set it to None in the case of create and to the destination address in the case of Call
rakita
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's completely possible I am missing something, but I couldn't find a good way to access the address of the account which owns the bytecode being executed while using the Inspector::step hook. It would be really convenient if the contract stored on the interpreter also contained the bytecode address like the CallInputs it is constructed from do.