Add WasmQuery::CodeInfo to get checksum for code ID #1561
Conversation
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
code-query
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3501878
to
c6505ec
Compare
|
|
||
| /// The essential data from wasmd's [CodeInfo]/[CodeInfoResponse]. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// `code_hash`/`data_hash` was renamed to `checksum` to follow the CosmWasm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 good to have the naming correct here.
| pub creator: String, | ||
| /// The hash of the Wasm blob | ||
| pub checksum: Binary, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to return the InstantiateConfig as well? It feels incomplete without
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was hesitant to add it since it is a complex deeply nested type that is not trivial to add to all the layers in between. But I can have a second look today.
I agree it feels incomplete. But on the other hand the smaller the interface, the more we can break on the wasmd side without breaking contracts. Do you see a clear use case for this information in the contract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that
- there are still things moving around instantiation permissions (Add AccesType OnlyCodeIDs wasmd#1042, Remove ACCESS_TYPE_ONLY_ADDRESS? wasmd#1142),
- we currently do not have experience with bringing enums from protobuf via JSON to Rust,
- the type is complex with address fields only being valid in case of certain enum values
I would like to avoid blockin Instantiate2 usage on that. The field can be added later on.
| @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ pub enum WasmQuery { | |||
| }, | |||
| /// Returns a [`ContractInfoResponse`] with metadata on the contract from the runtime | |||
| ContractInfo { contract_addr: String }, | |||
| /// Returns a [`CodeInfoResponse`] with metadata of the code | |||
| #[cfg(feature = "cosmwasm_1_2")] | |||
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
code-query
branch
from
08a2bf7
to
224b80c
Compare
The motivation for this addition is the following:
WasmMsg::Instantiate2requires a code ID. But when a contract wants to pre-compute the address, it also needs the checksum. It would be very inconvenient if a contract developer had to provide both as part of the instruction. With the query you can just provide a code ID and query the checksum as part of the contract.