Skip to content

Comments

feat: Allow simulateUtility batching, better BatchCall#17938

Merged
AztecBot merged 1 commit intonextfrom
gj/better_batch_calls
Oct 24, 2025
Merged

feat: Allow simulateUtility batching, better BatchCall#17938
AztecBot merged 1 commit intonextfrom
gj/better_batch_calls

Conversation

@Thunkar
Copy link
Contributor

@Thunkar Thunkar commented Oct 24, 2025

We have to rethink and probably rename BatchCall, but he functionality implemented by this PR is sorely needed:

  • Allow multiple utilities to be sent to the wallet as a batch, instead of relying on Promise.all and BatchCall
  • Do not allow BatchCall to create an empty transaction along the utilities if no private/public calls are provided
  • Add tests

We have to rethink and probably rename `BatchCall`, but he functionality implemented by this PR is sorely needed:

- Allow multiple utilities to be sent to the wallet as a batch, instead of relying on `Promise.all` and `BatchCall`
- Do not allow `BatchCall` to create an empty transaction along the utilities if no private/public calls are provided
- Add tests

Co-authored-by: thunkar <gregojquiros@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@benesjan benesjan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed in DMs approving this to unblock the demo while keeping in mind that the BatchCall will be refactored and the naming eventually fixed.

@AztecBot AztecBot added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 24, 2025
Merged via the queue into next with commit 26fa469 Oct 24, 2025
15 checks passed
@AztecBot AztecBot deleted the gj/better_batch_calls branch October 24, 2025 19:25
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