You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When bundling Strato with Rollup, there is an option to recurse (contracts.recurse) which, when set to true, it should recursively load all the solidity files from all directory levels found at contracts.path.
It does not work: The generated ContractRegistry maintains a flatten <contract name>: <contract ABI> reference from all processed solidity files. This means that if there's a contract A located in a.sol and a contract A located at b/a.sol, there will be 2 entries with the same key in ContractRegistry:
{
A: <a.sol A contract ABI>,
A: <b/a.sol A contract ABI>
}
which is an invalid state.
The correct prop names should come close to the ones present in #33 :
{
A: <a.sol A contract ABI>,
b/A: <b/a.sol A contract ABI>
}
Note: The props currently don't contain the name of the solidity file itself (as present in #33 's description) . This means that if, for the above example, there were also a contract A present in b/c.sol, you would again hit the same name conflict issue. We will resolve this on a separate ticket.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When bundling Strato with Rollup, there is an option to recurse (
contracts.recurse
) which, when set totrue
, it should recursively load all the solidity files from all directory levels found atcontracts.path
.It does not work: The generated
ContractRegistry
maintains a flatten<contract name>: <contract ABI>
reference from all processed solidity files. This means that if there's a contractA
located ina.sol
and a contractA
located atb/a.sol
, there will be 2 entries with the same key inContractRegistry
:which is an invalid state.
The correct prop names should come close to the ones present in #33 :
Note:
The props currently don't contain the name of the solidity file itself (as present in #33 's description) . This means that if, for the above example, there were also a contractA
present inb/c.sol
, you would again hit the same name conflict issue. We will resolve this on a separate ticket.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: