Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enrich document with using getter function over state struct instance #15526

Open
wants to merge 22 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor

@haoyang9804 haoyang9804 commented Oct 18, 2024

Inspired by this issue: #15525. I guess it's better to add a document for this special return type since it's truly confusing.

Copy link

Thank you for your contribution to the Solidity compiler! A team member will follow up shortly.

If you haven't read our contributing guidelines and our review checklist before, please do it now, this makes the reviewing process and accepting your contribution smoother.

If you have any questions or need our help, feel free to post them in the PR or talk to us directly on the #solidity-dev channel on Matrix.

docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@cameel cameel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a note on general structure here: the section on getters is already a bit too verbose IMO, with a lot of space and examples given to what are essentially obscure corner cases. I think we shouldn't make it even longer. We should consolidate the examples and make text more coherent. The focus should be kept primarily on explaining what getters are, the other things are just notes.

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just a note on general structure here: the section on getters is already a bit too verbose IMO, with a lot of space and examples given to what are essentially obscure corner cases. I think we shouldn't make it even longer. We should consolidate the examples and make text more coherent. The focus should be kept primarily on explaining what getters are, the other things are just notes.

How about merging struct example and mapping example? They are all corner cases that can lead to confusion.

@cameel
Copy link
Member

cameel commented Oct 21, 2024

Yes, they should be consolidated IMO. We could have just one example showing them all. Or even just a general description of how the ABI for a getter looks like. Which is relevant e.g. when you want to override a function with a getter and should be mentioned too.

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, they should be consolidated IMO. We could have just one example showing them all. Or even just a general description of how the ABI for a getter looks like. Which is relevant e.g. when you want to override a function with a getter and should be mentioned too.

Good suggestion. But I can only help with the consolidation part. I'm not very familiar with ABI.

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the Complex example is useful for benefit users' understanding in getter function. Maybe we can remove this example and only leave examples of array and struct the mitigate confusion.

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the Complex example is useful for benefit users' understanding in getter function. Maybe we can remove this example and only leave examples of array and struct the mitigate confusion.

I have merged the struct example and the array example. As for the Complex one that combine mapping and struct, since it implies no corner case, I removed it.
As for the ABI part, I think I can submit another pr after gaining some background.

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cameel Hi Kamil, any suggestions on the new commit?

Copy link
Collaborator

@matheusaaguiar matheusaaguiar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't agree with the removal of the "complex example". It illustrates a case which we have to include, and which without mentioning it, the proposed added text of this PR would be incomplete.

The getter function of a struct returns a tuple whose elements are each individual struct member. But, as the complex example illustrates, in some cases they are omitted.
A simpler example would be the following:

contract C {
    struct S {
        int[2] a;
        uint256 x;
    }
S s;
}

In this case, a is omitted and the getter return type would be (uint256).

docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contracts/visibility-and-getters.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thx for your review @matheusaaguiar, I have refined the doc, please take a look

Comment on lines 199 to 213
contract Complex {
struct Data {
// Struct Definition with multiple members
struct ComplexStruct {
uint a;
bytes3 b;
mapping(uint => uint) map;
uint[3] c;
uint[] d;
bytes e;
bool b;
int[2] arr;
}
mapping(uint => mapping(bool => Data[])) public data;
}

It generates a function of the following form. The mapping and arrays (with the
exception of byte arrays) in the struct are omitted because there is no good way
to select individual struct members or provide a key for the mapping:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this should stay.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have merged it with the ComplexStruct

rather than the struct as a single object in memory.
The members returned appear in the order they are declared in the struct, provided they
are not omitted. Array-type members within the struct are excluded from the returned tuple.
Additionally, if the struct consists solely of array-type members, no getter function will be generated
Copy link
Collaborator

@matheusaaguiar matheusaaguiar Oct 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not only arrays but also mappings don't have a getter generated (in this case) because as explained in the "Complex Example":
there is no good way to select individual struct members or provide a key for the mapping

Also, I guess that in the above quote, it was meant to be array members instead of struct members originally.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

have changed it

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, I guess that in the above quote, it was meant to be array members instead of struct members originally.

Can someone else check and see if they interpret it the same way I did? @r0qs @nikola-matic @clonker

@haoyang9804
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @matheusaaguiar , is it OK to merge?

Copy link
Collaborator

@matheusaaguiar matheusaaguiar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @haoyang9804, sorry for the late response. The team was busy during this month attending devcon.
I think this is a good state for this section now.
@mehtavishwa30 please could you give a final look and also confirm my suggestion in #15526 (comment) ?


The next example is more complex:
When you declare a public state variable of a struct type, the generated getter function
returns specific member of the struct as separate elements within a tuple,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
returns specific member of the struct as separate elements within a tuple,
returns each member of the struct as separate elements within a tuple,

b = data[arg1][arg2][arg3].b;
e = data[arg1][arg2][arg3].e;
}
// Getter function generated by the compiler
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it would be nice to keep the explanation from before (with the correction i suggested in #15526 (comment)):

The mapping and arrays (with the exception of byte arrays)
in the struct are omitted because there is no good way to
select individual array members or provide a key for the mapping

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants