Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2031 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 53.47% 53.60% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 221 224 +3
Lines 6984 7107 +123
Branches 3082 3146 +64
==========================================
+ Hits 3735 3810 +75
- Misses 3249 3297 +48 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
🦑 📈 ink! Example Contracts ‒ Changes Report 📉 🦑These are the results when building the
Link to the run | Last update: Thu Jan 11 06:13:55 CET 2024 |
ascjones
left a comment
ascjones
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of adding a new attribute macro #[::ink::signature_topic], we should look at extending the mechanism we already have for configuring the signature topic.
At the moment we have #[ink(anonymous)] which allows configuring the #[derive(Event)]. This is an idiomatic way to configure a derive macro, so imagine we introduce a new derive configuration attribute #[ink(signature_topic = 0x...)]. To follow this idea further, #[ink(anonymous)] is just an alias for #[ink(signature_topic = None)] (or whatever syntax we choose).
By combining these we might be able to simplify the implementation here, certainly we won't need the additional trait.
I think it should be:just 3 ways: Automatically calculated using #[ink(event) or #[ink::event] attributes So in essence we have the
Which expands to The derive then picks up the |
|
A general question - why do we need it? I'm not convinced original argument "we have this for selectors so we can have it for events" . For selectors it makes sense for backwards compatibility - imagine upgrading a contract and want to maintain compatibility with the rest of the ecosystem. For events, signature is based on the event's structure only, right? So there's no problem with backwards compatibility - if event has the same structure, old deserializers will still work. The way I see it, this feature can actually trick clients to observe, fetch, deserialize, etc. events that are not the ones they're interested in - example I'm observing |
This is useful for two reasons:
|
4 participants
Summary
Closes #1838 and follows up #1827
cargo-contractorpallet-contracts?Introduces optional attribute
signature_topicto the#[ink::event]and#[ink(event)]that takes 32-byte hash string to specify a signature topic for the specific event manually.Description
It introduces a new macro attribute
#[ink(signature_topic = _)], part ofEvent, and the same argument can be used with inline events, but subject to discussion in #2046.Example
If
signature_topicis not specified, then topic will be calculated automatically, otherwise the hash string will be used.This attribute is appended automatically in
#[ink::event].Breaking changeAs part of old discussion
However, when we manually use
#[derive(Event, scale::Encode)], we must also implementGetSignatureTopicas implied above. Therefore, we must also use[ink::signature_event].However, if
#[ink(anonymous)]is used, then#[derive(event)will derive a blank implementation ofGetSignatureTopicthat returnsNone, and[ink::signature_event]should not be used.Rationale
This approach was followed due to the philosophy behind the
[ink::event]macro that simply appends necessary proc macro attributes. Therefore, the user should achieve the same result manually.Earlier, I have attempted to generate an implementation for
GetSignatureTopicinside[ink::event]but this prevented from using#[derive(Event)]independently. Therefore, if usesignature_topic = Sarg inside#[ink::event]macro that simply passes the string arg into#[ink::signature_topic(hash = S)]Specifically,
GetSignatureTopicprovides the flexibility to provide custom calculation ofSIGNATURE_TOPICwithout the need to implementEventtrait.So signature topic can be defined in 6 ways:
#[ink(event)or#[ink::event]attributes#[ink::signature_topic]when#[derive(Event)is used directly#[ink(event, signature_topic = s)for local events#[ink::event(signature_topic = s)]for shared events#[ink::signature_topic(hash = s)]for shared events with#[derive(Event)]GetSignatureTopicfor the event struct directly for shared eventsNo breaking changes have been introduced. The
signature_topicargument is totally optional.Checklist before requesting a review
CHANGELOG.md