Interact with JS smart-contract

[ChaoticTempest]

Deploy

This will deploy the contract to JS enclave:

near js deploy --accountId <my-account> --base64File <path> --deposit 0.1

DevDeploy

Additionally, there is dev-deploy that doesn't require having an account already:

near js dev-deploy --base64File <path> --deposit 0.1

Call

Call into a contract's call method:

near js call <contract-id> <function-name> --accountId <my-account> --args <args> --deposit 0.1

View

Call into a contract's view method:

near js view <contract-id> <function-name> --accountId <my-account>

Remove

This will remove the contract from the JS enclave:

near js delete --accountId <my-account>

Feedback

As always, let us know where we can improve

[BenKurrek]

@ChaoticTempest why do we need the account ID flag for the view method?

[ChaoticTempest]

Yeah this was definitely not needed. This should fix it #983

[BenKurrek]

Ah ok - approved the PR. Thanks!

[BenKurrek]

It looks like when u use near js call, you still need to pass in the arguments in an array:

near js call $JS_CONTRACT set_greeting '["GO TEAM!"]' --accountId $JS_CONTRACT --deposit 0.1

If you try to use the regular way of interacting with the contracts (key value paired), it will throw:

near js call $JS_CONTRACT set_greeting '{"message": "GO TEAM!"}' --accountId $JS_CONTRACT --deposit 0.1

which throws:

ServerTransactionError: {"index":0,"kind":{"ExecutionError":"Smart contract panicked: value is not iterable\n    at set_greeting (build/contract.js:125)\n"}}

[ChaoticTempest]

Think full JSON deserialization isn't being done right now

cc @ailisp @volovyk-s

[AustinBaggio]

@ailisp @volovyk-s @ChaoticTempest is this a large effort?

[ailisp]

It wasn't possible with old JS decorator approach, since a method object only knows it's a function object, nothing about the param name is saved. So we could only pass in argument by order. It should be possible with in current AST transformation approach with some effort, possibly a day:

https://esprima.org/demo/parse.html?code=class%20SomeContract%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%40call%0A%20%20%20%20someMethod(name%2C%20count)%20%7B%7D%0A%7D

Do we decide to do now? It is a breaking change and need modify all examples/demos/tests

[ChaoticTempest]

If it's possible, I think its best we do it now or at least before 1.0 is released, so long as there aren't any disadvantages here. If there aren't, it's better to be consistent with regular contract calls and how they do deserialization, since it would be strange if we started to differ too much from AS and RS contract calls