manifest: support NEP-24

[AliceInHunterland]

Close #3451

wrapper generates:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes `royaltyInfo` method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
	return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

but it should be different.

add tests with smartcontact/testdata/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.91011% with 50 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.97%. Comparing base (57eec71) to head (b63c7aa).
Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go	65.45%	25 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go	85.93%	7 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go	25.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3560      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.02%   82.97%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         334      335       +1     
  Lines       46543    46708     +165     
==========================================
+ Hits        38643    38755     +112     
- Misses       6326     6363      +37     
- Partials     1574     1590      +16     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[AnnaShaleva]

And you need to adjust

neo-go/pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

Line 68 in 14ea5a8

func comply(m *manifest.Manifest, checkNames bool, st *Standard) error {

in the following way:

1. Extend standard.Standard structure with Required []string field. This field includes standards required by this standard.
2. In comply() check that standards marked as "Required" are present in the manifest. No compliance check is needed for them, the presence check is enough since compliance is checked by the calling code for all standards.

[AnnaShaleva]

Also, the test of RPC bindings generator based on the existing NEP contract is missing, we discussed it in DM.

[AnnaShaleva]

Review is not finished, some new code is uploaded.

[AnnaShaleva]

Not for the NEP11 contract itself, read the spec:

Marketplaces that support this standard MUST emit the event, RoyaltiesTransferred for each recipient, after sending a payment.

[AliceInHunterland]

so I should remove it from manifest/standard too?

[AnnaShaleva]

Yes, it's not a part of the standard that belongs to the NEP11 contract itself. But it should be moved to a separate standard, ref. #3560 (comment).

[AnnaShaleva]

The test is not finished. I need a test with generated RPC bindings.

[AnnaShaleva]

Waiting for the response.

[AnnaShaleva]

wrapper generates:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes royaltyInfo method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

but it should be different.

What is your expected result? To me, the auto-generated code looks good although it does not includes named return structures, but it depends on the original contract. As I said earlier, it's a matter of separate issue anyway.

[AliceInHunterland]

i have:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes `royaltyInfo` method of contract.
func (c *RoyaltyReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
	return unwrap.Array(c.Invoker.Call(c.Hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

and:

func TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2(t *testing.T) {
	ta := new(testAct)
	rr := &RoyaltyReader{
		Invoker: ta,
		Hash:    util.Uint160{1, 2, 3},
	}

	tokenID := []byte{1, 2, 3}
	royaltyToken := util.Uint160{4, 5, 6}
	salePrice := big.NewInt(1000)

	tests := []struct {
		name       string
		setupFunc  func()
		expectErr  bool
		expectedRI []RoyaltyRecipient
	}{
		{
			name: "error case",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.err = errors.New("some error")
			},
			expectErr: true,
		},
		{
			name: "valid response",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.err = nil
				recipient := util.Uint160{7, 8, 9}
				amount := big.NewInt(100)
				ta.res = &result.Invoke{
					State: "HALT",
					Stack: []stackitem.Item{
						stackitem.Make([]stackitem.Item{
							stackitem.Make(recipient.BytesBE()),
							stackitem.Make(amount),
						}),
					},
				}
			},
			expectErr: false,
			expectedRI: []RoyaltyRecipient{
				{
					Address: util.Uint160{7, 8, 9},
					Amount:  big.NewInt(100),
				},
			},
		},
		{
			name: "invalid data response",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.res = &result.Invoke{
					State: "HALT",
					Stack: []stackitem.Item{
						stackitem.Make([]stackitem.Item{
							stackitem.Make(util.Uint160{7, 8, 9}.BytesBE()),
						}),
					},
				}
			},
			expectErr: true,
		},
	}

	for _, tt := range tests {
		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
			tt.setupFunc()
			riStackItems, err := rr.RoyaltyInfo(tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice)
			if tt.expectErr {
				require.Error(t, err)
			} else {
				require.NoError(t, err)
				require.Len(t, riStackItems, len(tt.expectedRI))

				var actualRI []RoyaltyRecipient
				for _, item := range riStackItems {
					subItems, ok := item.Value().([]stackitem.Item)
					require.True(t, ok)
					require.Len(t, subItems, 2)

					recipientBytes, err := subItems[0].TryBytes()
					require.NoError(t, err)
					recipient, err := util.Uint160DecodeBytesBE(recipientBytes)
					require.NoError(t, err)

					amount, err := subItems[1].TryInteger()
					require.NoError(t, err)

					actualRI = append(actualRI, RoyaltyRecipient{
						Address: recipient,
						Amount:  amount,
					})
				}

				require.Equal(t, tt.expectedRI, actualRI)
			}
		})
	}
}

and:

=== RUN   TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response
    royalty_test.go:183: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/ekaterinapavlova/Workplace/neo-go/pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go:183
        	Error:      	"[ByteString BigInteger]" should have 1 item(s), but has 2
        	Test:       	TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response
--- FAIL: TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response (0.00s)

=== RUN   TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response
    royalty_test.go:180: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/ekaterinapavlova/Workplace/neo-go/pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go:180
        	Error:      	An error is expected but got nil.
        	Test:       	TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response
--- FAIL: TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response (0.00s)

[AliceInHunterland]

wrapper generates:
// RoyaltyInfo invokes royaltyInfo method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}
but it should be different.

What is your expected result? To me, the auto-generated code looks good although it does not includes named return structures, but it depends on the original contract. As I said earlier, it's a matter of separate issue anyway.

I wrongly passed as a config file to generate-rpcbinding the same config file as used for contract compile which is why I expected a different result (something like:

neo-go/cli/smartcontract/testdata/rpcbindings/nep_contract/rpcbindings.out

Line 75 in f27de7c

func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]*TestnepRoyaltyRecipient, error) {

). Also tried to write the test for it #3560 (comment) and with that implementation, it didn't work.

[roman-khimov]

I wrongly passed as a config file to generate-rpcbinding the same config file as used for contract compile

You're not first one to do this, btw. @smallhive and @tatiana-nspcc both know it happens easily. Long-term this will be solved by removing binding configuration file because of NEP-25.

[AnnaShaleva]

#3560 (comment) is still missing.

[AnnaShaleva]

Good.

[AnnaShaleva]

Good job, some minor changes are required, otherwise LGTM.