Implement @radspec helper #55
Conversation
src/evaluator/index.js
Outdated
| this.ast = ast | ||
| this.bindings = bindings | ||
| this.eth = new Eth(ethNode || 'https://mainnet.infura.io') | ||
| this.eth = eth || new Eth(ethNode || 'https://mainnet.infura.io') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, are we ever passing eth around? It should just be ethNode.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Helpers have the eth object so they can do network requests, but they don't have the ethNode. I guess there is a method to get it, but this seemed cleaner to me.
src/helpers/radspec.js
Outdated
| if (!fn) { | ||
| return { | ||
| type: 'string', | ||
| value: `Unknown (${methodId})` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could also add the address here as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense for errors, although radspec strings don't print anything about the target contract.
How I see this being used in the Actor's execute for example is: Execute '@radspec(target, data)' on 'target'
| const functions = processFunctions(require('../data/knownFunctions')) | ||
|
|
||
| // Get method ID | ||
| const methodId = data.substr(0, 10) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably do some error checking that the data is formatted correctly
src/helpers/radspec.js
Outdated
| */ | ||
| async (addr, data) => { | ||
| // lazily import radspec to avoid a dependency cycle | ||
| const { evaluateRaw } = require('../index') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
.__. not sure how well this is going to fly with builders like parcel. Will need to check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤷♀️ cleaner way I could think of that didn't require a major re-architecture
src/data/knownFunctions.json
Outdated
| { | ||
| "setOwner(address)": "Set `$1` as the new owner", | ||
| "setOwner(bytes32,address)": "Set `$2` as the new owner of the `$1` node", | ||
| "transfer(address,address,uint256)": "Transfer `@tokenAmount($1, $3)` to `$2`" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not generally against this idea, but find it a bit unnecessary.
Instead of re-evaluating radspec, we could just run a javascript function here with the arguments to build the string. We could inject the web3 instance as well, if we really wanted to allow web3 calls.
* @radspec: add fallback to Parity on-chain signature registry * Style comments * Update methodRegistry.js
|
All good from my side. @sohkai PTAL! |
|
@izqui Will test locally to see if the recursive require becomes a problem for frontends. Otherwise, I think we should still fix #55 (comment); the relative brittleness of how we handle radspec errors means the more error checking we do, the better. |
The
@radspechelper allows to recursively execute radspec as part of a radspec string. These strings should be either included in the radspec package or loaded from a trusted registry, as the recursive nature of this feature could be used to crash radspec with an infinite loop.