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
Update DryRun cost fields and expose DryRun accounts to users #31
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this great addition. I made a few minor suggestions. There is another suggestion that I'd like to make:
class ABIContractExecutor
in blackbox.py
has the method dry_run_on_sequence()
which would also benefit from allowing a new optional dryrun_accounts
(or just accounts
) parameter. So I recommend modifying this method as well.
New ArgType Alias
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. There are a number of minor suggestions that I don't feel strongly about. In particular of note:
- a suggestion to remove a print statement
- removal of
Account()
info from pre-existing test that doesn't need it - suggested assertion about the error message received in the case that app account for inner txn call wasn't funded
Also, I just realized that I still have the outstanding suggestion to create a new type alias |
Closing in favor of #33 |
For certain use cases, it's necessary to set the balance of the app account to some nonzero value. One example is testing inner app calls. This PR allows the users to set balances for accounts and updates the existing dryrun
cost
field (which is now deprecated) and adds support for the new cost fieldsBudgetAdded
andBudgetConsumed
.Testing: Unit tests.