feat: guide user to call a contract

[AlexD10S]

PR that parses the contract metadata and guides the user in interacting with the smart contract

┌   Pop CLI : Call a contract
│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  15XausWjFLBBFLDXUSBRfSfZk25warm4wZRV4ZxhZbfvjrJm
│
◇  Select the message to call:
│  get 
│
◇  Where is your contract deployed?
│  wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz
│
◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  //Alice
│
◓  Calling the contract...                                                                                                                                            ⚙  Result: Ok(false)
│  
▲  Your call has not been executed.
│  
◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No 
└  

Apologies for the large PR; it grew bigger as we needed to test user interactions in the pop-cli crate.
This required adding more code for testing purposes, including changes to the CLI module and the introduction of a new init_tests file which contains reusable methods for various tests.

Ideally, these changes should have been introduced in #315, but they were included here due to the necessity of testing the current implementation.

Another note, for testing purposes it has introduced a testing.json file. This file is the metadata of a modified flipper contract, which includes an extra message, to effectively test argument parsing and payable functions.

/// A message for testing, flips the value of the stored `bool` with `new_value`
/// and is payable
#[ink(message)]
#[ink(payable)]
pub fn specific_flip(&mut self, new_value: bool) {
    self.value = new_value;
}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 79.48553% with 319 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.59%. Comparing base (258a4b2) to head (ffa5f6d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	85.00%	44 Missing and 85 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs	76.32%	70 Missing and 24 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/cli.rs	56.58%	50 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	71.42%	0 Missing and 14 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs	82.43%	0 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/common/contracts.rs	72.00%	1 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
crates/pop-contracts/src/testing.rs	68.42%	0 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #306      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.47%   72.59%   +2.11%     
==========================================
  Files          54       56       +2     
  Lines        9250    10673    +1423     
  Branches     9250    10673    +1423     
==========================================
+ Hits         6519     7748    +1229     
- Misses       1737     1838     +101     
- Partials      994     1087      +93     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/up/contract.rs	18.46% <100.00%> (-5.42%)	⬇️
crates/pop-contracts/src/errors.rs	100.00% <ø> (+100.00%)	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/testing.rs	68.42% <68.42%> (ø)
crates/pop-cli/src/common/contracts.rs	24.00% <72.00%> (+24.00%)	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/call.rs	81.22% <82.43%> (+2.60%)	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	80.33% <71.42%> (+2.44%)	⬆️
crates/pop-cli/src/cli.rs	67.36% <56.58%> (-4.89%)	⬇️
crates/pop-contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs	76.32% <76.32%> (ø)
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	83.35% <85.00%> (+83.35%)	⬆️

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[brunopgalvao]

Overall it LGTM. Some feedback:

┌   Pop CLI : Call a contract
│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  5DYs7UGBm2LuX4ryvyqfksozNAW5V47tPbGiVgnjYWCZ29bt
│
└  Unable to fetch contract metadata.
Error: Anyhow error: Cannot infer the root project id

It would be nice if “error” was not repeated. Something like this:

│
◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./
│
◇  Paste the on-chain contract address:
│  5DYs7UGBm2LuX4ryvyqfksozNAW5V47tPbGiVgnjYWCZ29bt
│
└  Unable to fetch contract metadata.
Error: Cannot infer the root project id

Same with this:

◇  Do you want to execute the call? (Selecting 'No' will perform a dry run)
│  Yes 
│
Error: Rpc error: RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Caused by:
    RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Change to this:

◇  Do you want to execute the call? (Selecting 'No' will perform a dry run)
│  Yes 
│
Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

Caused by:
    RPC error: Error when opening the TCP socket: Connection refused (os error 61)

◇  Where is your project located?
│  ./flipper

Autocomplete when typing the contract's location would be useful.

Looking up RPC URL's can be cumbersome. It would be nice to be able to select commonly used RPC URL's such as Pop Network or localhost.

So this:

◇  Where is your contract deployed?
│  wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz

Could be something like this:

◆  Where is your contract deployed?
│  ● Pop Network TestNet (wss://rpc1.paseo.popnetwork.xyz)
│  ○ Local on Port 9944 (ws://localhost:9944) ○ Custom (Specify)

Change this:

◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No 

To something like this:

◆  Do you want to do another call?
│  ● No
│  ○ Yes, with the same contract
│  ○ Yes, with another contract on the same chain

If this change will not be incorporated then at least don’t clear the screen when I say “yes” to call another contract so that I can copy the address and chain URL. Regardless, the default for pop call contract should be to never clear the screen when it is ran because I find it useful to have a “log” of calls that I have done either for copying info to use again or simply to remember the order of calls that I have done and with which parameters.

Change this:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ● flip ( A message that can be called on instantiated contracts.  This one flips the value of the stored `bool` from `true`  to `false` and vice versa.)
│  ○ get 
└  

I would imagine these Rust Doc comments can easily be 4+ lines for a more sophisticated contract.
For example:

/// Use the new `call_v2` host function via the call builder to forward calls to
/// the other contract, initially calling `flip` and then `get` to return the
/// result.
///
/// This demonstrates how to set the new weight and storage limit parameters via
/// the call builder API.

• https://github.com/use-ink/ink-examples/blob/682605fb39f4d9a2d69a48ffc0ce042602386ad9/cross-contract-calls/lib.rs#L75C1-L80C34

Therefore I would have it be displayed underneath the function call making sure to preserve the same formatting that was presented in the Rust Doc comment e.g.:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ● flip_and_get_invoke_v2_with_limits
|  
│   Use the new `call_v2` host function via the call builder to forward calls to
│   the other contract, initially calling `flip` and then `get` to return the
│   result.
│   
│   This demonstrates how to set the new weight and storage limit parameters via
│   the call builder API.
|  
│  ○ get 
└  

◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  //Alice

For a custom account, I was not sure what to input so I pasted my account’s address:

◇  Signer calling the contract:
│  16hkVKMehgVjTP7AsUvhU8rsYQhK9JDirPWWhpAwHaFTHRfc

Error: Failed to create keypair from URI: Cannot parse phrase: mnemonic has an invalid word count: 1. Word count must be 12, 15, 18, 21, or 24

It was not intuitive to me that it was expecting a mnemonic phrase like so:

│  car pocket team home penalty leg forget attend draft width blush lettuce

[AlexD10S]

Thanks for the feedback @brunopgalvao
Nice catch on the error messages.
I’ve improved the error message you mentioned, but error handling needs a proper refactor in all the project. Since it could become a larger task for this PR, I’ve opened a new issue to address it separately: #309

Great point about placing the message docs below the message name I’ve fixed that:

◆  Select the message to call:
│  ○ flip
 
│  ● get
 ( Simply returns the current value of our `bool`.)
│  ○ specific_flip
 
└ 

Same for clearing the screen when prompting for another call. I liked your idea of reusing the contract information, but I reduced it to two options instead of the three you suggested. If want to call another contract, the user should start again:

◆  Do you want to do another call using the existing smart contract?
│  ○ Yes  / ● No 

Autocomplete for the path and a list of addresses for me are nice-to-have features we can add in the future, feel free to create issues if you think they are needed.

As for the signer, I’m not sure how to improve that right now, but we’ll be working on a better process for signing transactions soon, so hopefully that will make things clearer.

Another piece of feedback from @peterwht that has been implemented is showing the user the call that will be executed after all the values are prompted:

⚙  pop call contract --path ./ --contract 5GumB5XDPMT7i1JAFTApxhEneWqRyLaBGdJb8CVXngb4ngTX --message get --url ws://localhost:9944/ --suri //Alice
│  
◐  Calling the contract...                                                                                                                                            ⚙  Result: Ok(false)

The option to skip the dry-run and submit the call directly is a new feature. I’d prefer to address this in a separate PR. I’ve opened an issue for it: #310.

[evilrobot-01]

Running on the command on a fresh project, no build, results in the following:

[AlexD10S]

Running on the command on a fresh project, no build, results in the following:

Good catch! We can apply the same logic as the pop up contract building it if it hasn't been built already.

[al3mart]

Right now we assume that we are receiving a path to a contract project to load the metadata, and if not present build the contract to obtain the metadata.

We only need the metadata in order to call a contract, so it would be handy having both, an option for any user to point to their project and build the contract if necessary, or passing the location of the metadata directly to pop. Maybe the user only has access to the metadata.

[al3mart]

Good catch! We can apply the same logic as the pop up contract building it if it hasn't been built already.

A note on this one, @AlexD10S . Right now if we execute pop call contract on a contract that hasn't being built, and no metadata is provided either, the build starts right away which is great, but right after users are prompted for an address, as if the contract had been deployed already. At that point of the flow there's not much more users can do than killing the process.

[AlexD10S]

A note on this one, @AlexD10S . Right now if we execute pop call contract on a contract that hasn't being built, and no metadata is provided either, the build starts right away which is great, but right after users are prompted for an address, as if the contract had been deployed already. At that point of the flow there's not much more users can do than killing the process.

Interesting. After some discussions the best approach seems to be prompting the user after build the contract if the contract has already been deployed. There's a valid case where the contract hasn't been built locally, but the user still wants to interact with an already deployed contract, and the local build is only a way to get the artifacts.
If the user confirms, we continue; if they decline, we display a message prompting them to use pop up contract to deploy the contract.
Implementation in the last commit d71f35e

[al3mart]

After all the improvements and addressing all the feedback the call contract flow looks pretty nice!

I believe there's one new function that could be divided in two. But aside from that all is looking great. Thanks!

[al3mart]

All is looking great! ❤️

[evilrobot-01]

Whilst there are a lot of comments, most of them are minor. Once addressed I think we should be ready to merge.

[evilrobot-01]

Great stuff! Thank you for your patience on these last few improvements!

[al3mart]

Re approving after the last few changes.
❤️