feat(ffi): expose TransactionBuilder::{get_named_result(), named_command()} #274
Conversation
…and()}; add tx_command_results example
Thoralf-M
force-pushed
the
feat/tx-command-results-example
branch
from
7459299 to
ad484b4
Compare
| pub fn split_coins(coin: Arc<PTBArgument>, amounts: Vec<Arc<PTBArgument>>) -> Self { | ||
| Self(PTBCommandKind::SplitCoins { coin, amounts }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These probably need a new prefix, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, I don't really like that named_command is exposed at all. Why would you do this rather than just calling the builder methods?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The builder methods currently doesn't allow to provide results from previous commands
We could change the params to make use of the PTBArgument trait, but not sure if that's better, because just providing numbers like this .split_coins(coin, [1000, 2000, 3000]) wouldn't work anymore, you would have to specify them as u64 .split_coins(coin, [1000u64, 2000, 3000]) and if you read the fn signature it's not clear at all
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would look like this, and we probably should adjust all the builder methods to that then 8ec9483
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I see. This is definitely a bit of a weird case. And using PTBArgument means you can pass a lot of stuff that would be invalid :c Still, I guess the system allows you to make mistakes in any command if you don't know what you're doing, so maybe it's not such a big issue 🤷♀️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you prefer the params with the PTBArgument trait?
2 participants
Also added tx_command_results examples for #233