feature(rpc): add remaining anvil rpc methods to provider #831
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
prestwich
reviewed
Jun 5, 2024
prestwich
requested changes
Jun 6, 2024
| @@ -77,5 +78,11 @@ ipc = ["pubsub", "alloy-rpc-client/ipc", "alloy-transport-ipc"] | |||
| reqwest-default-tls = ["alloy-transport-http?/reqwest-default-tls"] | |||
| reqwest-rustls-tls = ["alloy-transport-http?/reqwest-rustls-tls"] | |||
| reqwest-native-tls = ["alloy-transport-http?/reqwest-native-tls"] | |||
| anvil = ["reqwest", "dep:alloy-node-bindings", "dep:alloy-signer-wallet"] | |||
| anvil-api = ["dep:alloy-rpc-types-anvil"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unsure if newlines are from your formatter, or if other formatters would also produce them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
its my formatter (Even Better TOML extension) with the default configuration
zerosnacks
changed the title
zerosnacks
requested review from
DaniPopes,
gakonst,
mattsse,
onbjerg and
Evalir
as code owners
DaniPopes
reviewed
Jun 6, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async fn anvil_set_next_block_timestamp(&self, seconds: u64) -> TransportResult<()> { | ||
| self.client().request("evm_setNextBlockTimestamp", (seconds,)).await |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
some of these are declared as fn anvil but are evm_ ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, these were originally introduced by ganache which is deprecated now, imo we can keep the anvil prefix because these are also aliased in anvil:
but these also exist on hardhat iirc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I've used the anvil prefix if it is available in Foundry as such. This is the case for most methods but unfortunately not all.
mattsse
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
Co-authored-by: DaniPopes <[email protected]>
…ectness to be handled in #838
mattsse
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
DaniPopes
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
prestwich
deleted the
zerosnacks/add-remaining-anvil-rpc-methods-to-provider
branch
ben186
pushed a commit
to ben186/alloy
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Closes #271
Solution
Implements Anvil API mirroring implementation in Foundry: https://github.com/foundry-rs/foundry/blob/00854b602ef0e67379a2027ccc5d0aad553e5333/crates/anvil/src/eth/api.rs#L1492-L2025
Found a couple of issues in Anvil, very likely unrelated to this API implementation that will requires follow-ups in Foundry:
evm_mine,evm_mine_detailedonly mines a single block regardless of the configuration defined by MineOptions. Works OK withNone.anvil_setBlocklogic is implemented in Anvil but not available on the API (dead code).anvil_enable_tracesis disabled in Anvil.anvil_resetdoes not update thechain_idcorrectly.Goal of the tests are mainly as a smoke test to make sure the API is correct.
PR Checklist