feat: add ExtendedMessageContext with asset and amount info

[s2imonovic]

Add asset and amount information to the onCall hook on connected chains through a new ExtendedMessageContext struct.

Closes: #426

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

🗂️ Base branches to auto review (1)

• main

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 62.50000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (node/v31.0.0@b3d33a7). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
contracts/evm/GatewayEVM.sol	62.50%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             node/v31.0.0     #550   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   86.51%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?        9           
  Lines                   ?      534           
  Branches                ?      132           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?      462           
  Misses                  ?       71           
  Partials                ?        1           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[fadeev]

Are we doing this to keep backwards compatibility? What if we decide to add more parameters? Seems like having parameters outside of a struct is easier to manage than introducing new structs.

[s2imonovic]

Are we doing this to keep backwards compatibility? What if we decide to add more parameters? Seems like having parameters outside of a struct is easier to manage than introducing new structs.

@fadeev I created a new structure because I was already making a new interface, so I wanted to keep everything consistent with version 1. We cant put multiple functions into the same interface because that would be bad for devex, since developers implementing the interface would have to implement 2 or more same functions with different parameters. So anyway, if we are going to add new parameters, we will have to create new interfaces, and whether we structure the parameters or not doesn’t really matter.

[fadeev]

What if we added new params into the existing MessageContext struct and just asked devs to upgrade?

[s2imonovic]

Of course, we can do it that way. That would be the best option. I just understood, that we should do it in a way to maintain backward compatibility, in case some team can’t upgrade the contracts or has some other reason why it doesn’t work for them.

[lumtis]

Same comment as #549 for the PR convention