-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 330
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
chore: aztec js circulars #3723
Changes from all commits
9c19912
62a82f1
cbc30f6
e4cb78a
dd2af06
10172b7
1187702
7a3206d
5667550
2901ba2
307111b
d7cd82f
b216989
845d6a7
c6c1746
4dbe5d8
2b37d4f
c8b54e9
6f37879
e507c11
55df33d
8c42a0c
d717cf1
5a699f1
a65b6d3
79767ff
9eed4a3
bcfb480
c4fcc95
2cd5000
f0c0806
c0fda33
c89fdef
b0da8f5
87db3be
eb6b3f8
0f535c5
a106051
491212e
bdee88b
e8e1f5b
be74798
deed769
4064114
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
src/account_contract/artifacts | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I recall having to add artifacts to source control (horrible, I know) to avoid a bootstrapping issue. Are we sure removing them doesn't break bootstrapping? (maybe it was fixed by removing some unneeded dependencies?) And more importantly: are we sure our build steps that generate these contracts are always run before this package is published, so that we don't accidentally publish aztec.js without these artifacts? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'll double check, but given that we build-all-the-things in yarn-project, and in the bootstrap script, I would assume these should be present and not need to be committed. As a separate point of note, I don't think these should even be here? The account contracts are defined by users of our system. Is there a reason we're baking these into aztec.js? I could kind of see them being in the CLI, if we assume cli to be a layer that wraps aztec.js, and the cli is a tool that, amongst other things, provides examples. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good point! We can probably move them elsewhere at this point. Not the CLI though: these contracts need to be available as a library, since they are used a lot in tests (to bootstrap accounts to interact with) or even in the sandbox itself. |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | ||
import { PXE } from '@aztec/types'; | ||
|
||
import { AccountInterface } from './interface.js'; | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* The wallet interface. | ||
*/ | ||
export type Wallet = AccountInterface & PXE; |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
export * from './account_contract.js'; | ||
export * from './ecdsa_account_contract.js'; | ||
export * from './schnorr_account_contract.js'; | ||
export * from './single_key_account_contract.js'; | ||
export * from './base_account_contract.js'; |
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.
Same!
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.
This was deliberate. These don't exit anymore.