Describe building contract and query creation #182
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
uint
requested changes
Nov 7, 2024
| @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "contract-creation": "Contract creation", | |||
| "entry-points": "Entry points" | |||
| "entry-points": "Entry points", | |||
| "building-contract": "Building contract", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| "building-contract": "Building contract", | |
| "building-contract": "Building the contract", |
|
|
||
| The `--target` argument tells cargo to perform cross-compilation for a given target instead of | ||
| building a native binary for an OS it is running on - in this case, `wasm32-unknown-unknown`, which | ||
| is a fancy name for Wasm target. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| is a fancy name for Wasm target. | |
| is a fancy name for the Wasm target. |
| building even smaller binaries. For production, all the contracts should be compiled using this | ||
| tool, but for learning purposes, it is not an essential thing to do. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Aliasing build command |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ## Aliasing build command | |
| ## Aliasing the build command |
|
|
||
| ## Aliasing build command | ||
|
|
||
| Now I can see you are disappointed in building your contracts with some overcomplicated command |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Now I can see you are disappointed in building your contracts with some overcomplicated command | |
| Now I can imagine you are disappointed in building your contracts with some overcomplicated command |
|
|
||
| ## Checking contract validity | ||
|
|
||
| When the contract is built, the last step is to ensure it is a valid CosmWasm contract is to call |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| When the contract is built, the last step is to ensure it is a valid CosmWasm contract is to call | |
| Once the contract is built, the last step is to ensure it is a valid CosmWasm contract by calling |
| Note that our entry point still has the same `Empty` type for its `msg` argument - it means that the | ||
| query message we would send to the contract is still an empty JSON: `{}` | ||
|
|
||
| The last thing that changed is the return type. Instead of returning the `Response` type on the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The last thing that changed is the return type. Instead of returning the `Response` type on the | |
| The last thing that changed is the return type. Instead of returning the `Response` type for the |
| query message we would send to the contract is still an empty JSON: `{}` | ||
|
|
||
| The last thing that changed is the return type. Instead of returning the `Response` type on the | ||
| success case, we return an arbitrary serializable object. This is because queries are not using a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| success case, we return an arbitrary serializable object. This is because queries are not using a | |
| success case, we return an arbitrary serializable object. This is because queries do not use a |
| JSON. It is terrible - if we would like to add another query in the future, it would be difficult to | ||
| have any reasonable distinction between query variants. | ||
|
|
||
| In practice, we address this by using a non-empty query message type. Improve our contract: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| In practice, we address this by using a non-empty query message type. Improve our contract: | |
| In practice, we address this by using a non-empty query message type. Let's improve our contract: |
| message: String, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our convention is to encode enum variants as snake_case JSON names. We either use the rename_all Serde attribute or go through the cw_serde macro.
|
|
||
| Straightforward top-level module. Definition of submodules and entry points, nothing more. | ||
|
|
||
| Now, when we have the contract ready to do something, let's go and test it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Now, when we have the contract ready to do something, let's go and test it. | |
| Now, since our contract is ready to do something, let's go and test it. |
I'm guessing this better conveys what you meant, could be wrong
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Part of #176