Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Call ink! contracts from Solidity: support RLP encoding #2345

Merged
merged 47 commits into from
Jan 28, 2025
Merged

Call ink! contracts from Solidity: support RLP encoding #2345

merged 47 commits into from
Jan 28, 2025

Conversation

ascjones
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@peterwht
Copy link
Contributor

peterwht commented Jan 15, 2025

Not necessary for the first version, but would it make sense to give devs the ability to do a per-message RLP encoding? That way an ink! dev can use full-Rust (scale) for most of the messages, and then expose a couple messages for use by Solidity. They can do this without having to support the entire contract as RLP.

@peterwht
Copy link
Contributor

peterwht commented Jan 18, 2025

Just documenting here: currently there is a bug when the abi_encoding is "all" and selector is provided by the user.

This results in

conflicting implementations of trait `DispatchableMessageInfo<3235826430>` for type `Contract`

resolved in: 5d2f64d

C: Callable,
{
// todo: handle user provided RLP selector...
if let Some(selector) = callable.user_provided_selector() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

a user provided selector does not rely on encoding, right (equivalent for both scale and RLP)?

If this is the case, this commit should have resolved this TODO: 5d2f64d

@peterwht peterwht marked this pull request as ready for review January 28, 2025 04:02
@peterwht peterwht requested a review from cmichi as a code owner January 28, 2025 04:02
Copy link
Collaborator

@cmichi cmichi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Although incomplete, we are merging this PR as it makes our work on RLP in separate PRs easier.

@cmichi cmichi merged commit d0b003e into master Jan 28, 2025
14 of 21 checks passed
@cmichi cmichi deleted the aj/rlp branch January 28, 2025 08:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants