Add internal transaction submission file #11
Merged
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
heliuchuan
reviewed
Oct 11, 2023
xbtmatt
reviewed
Oct 11, 2023
| export async function generateTransaction(args: GenerateFeePayerRawTransactionArgs): Promise<FeePayerTransaction>; | ||
| export async function generateTransaction(args: GenerateMultiAgentRawTransactionArgs): Promise<MultiAgentTransaction>; | ||
| export async function generateTransaction(args: GenerateRawTransactionArgs): Promise<AnyRawTransaction>; | ||
| export async function buildTransaction(args: GenerateSingleSignerRawTransactionArgs): Promise<SingleSignerTransaction>; |
xbtmatt
reviewed
Oct 11, 2023
| @@ -180,12 +185,10 @@ export async function generateRawTransaction(args: { | |||
| * When we call our `generateTransaction` function with the relevant type properties, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * When we call our `generateTransaction` function with the relevant type properties, | |
| * When we call our `buildTransaction` function with the relevant type properties, |
xbtmatt
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree with @heliuchuan on consolidating the docs to one section although we can do it later and I think you have a better idea of the intended structure here
lgtm, buildTransaction is definitely a much better name!
gregnazario
reviewed
Oct 11, 2023
Comment on lines
+62
to
+67
| export async function generateTransaction( | ||
| args: { aptosConfig: AptosConfig } & GenerateTransactionInput, | ||
| ): Promise<AnyRawTransaction> { | ||
| const { aptosConfig, sender, data, options, secondarySignerAddresses, feePayerAddress } = args; | ||
| const payload = await generateTransactionPayload(data); | ||
| const rawTransaction = await buildTransaction({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is different than buildTransaction, or should it also be named buildTransaction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is different. buildTransaction is a transaction_builder function, generateTransaction is a transaction_submission function
gregnazario
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2023
the whole e2e transaction submission tests will get changed |
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.
Description
Just realized that previous PR was not completely full as we need to have those pure functions internally that handles the logic.
This PR conforms to the sdk design in a way that everything in
api/folder is a user facing interface functions and those ininternal/folder are responsible on the actual logic.more info https://github.com/aptos-labs/aptos-ts-sdk/pull/11/files#diff-a5a44d0986e0254ae62cd623aeaac609a288c9b2eabe5c741fd5b4a4f350a3ddR2
Test Plan
pnpm jest