fix: add missing receipts properties

[Torres-ssf]

Fixes TS-647

• Closes Add Receipts Missing Properties #3155

Checklist

• All changes are covered by tests (or not applicable)
• All changes are documented (or not applicable)
• I reviewed the entire PR myself (preferably, on GH UI)
• I described all Breaking Changes (or there's none)

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
create-fuels-template	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 16, 2024 6:16pm
ts-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 16, 2024 6:16pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
create-fuels-counter-example	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Sep 16, 2024 6:16pm

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #3156 will improve performances by 81.8%

_{Comparing st/fix/add-missing-receipts-properties (c36adf2) with master (600b781)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
✅ 20 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	master	st/fix/add-missing-receipts-properties	Change
⚡	Instantiate from an address	96.7 ms	53.2 ms	+81.8%

[maschad]

Nice work @Torres-ssf Given that this method is used in dryRun , estimateTxDependencies, estimateMultipleTxDependencies and simulate Provider methods, as well as the transaction summary methods , should we add fuel-gauge tests to capture this change in the receipts?

[Torres-ssf]

Nice work @Torres-ssf Given that this method is used in dryRun , estimateTxDependencies, estimateMultipleTxDependencies and simulate Provider methods, as well as the transaction summary methods , should we add fuel-gauge tests to capture this change in the receipts?

@maschad I have updated the unit test where parsed receipts properties are validated 8cdfd23

[maschad]

@Torres-ssf I observed that, but that relies on mock data, do you not feel that our end-to-end / fuel-gauge tests would capture this type of inconsistency more readily given it's closer to a consumer API interaction?

[Dhaiwat10]

Why is this PR causing such a significant performance regression? 👀

[petertonysmith94]

@Torres-ssf I observed that, but that relies on mock data, do you not feel that our end-to-end / fuel-gauge tests would capture this type of inconsistency more readily given it's closer to a consumer API interaction?

IMO as these coders are due for deprecation, mocked data is sufficient for now.

[maschad]

Good point @petertonysmith94

[github-actions]

Coverage Report:

Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
77.16%(+0.03%)	71.81%(+0.14%)	75.77%(+0%)	77.27%(+0.03%)

Changed Files:

Ok	File (✨=New File)	Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
✅	packages/account/src/providers/transaction-summary/receipt.ts	100% (+11.12%)	100% (+54.55%)	100% (+0%)	100% (+11.12%)
🔴	packages/account/src/providers/utils/receipts.ts	94.54% (+0.1%)	72% (+0%)	100% (+0%)	94.64% (+0.1%)
🔴	packages/transactions/src/coders/receipt.ts	95.39% (+0.07%)	84.37% (+0%)	89.58% (+0%)	95.16% (+0.07%)