StarkNet 0.11.0 adjustments

[ArielElp]

This change is 

[anatgstarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ArielElp)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1162 at r1 (raw file):

                    },
                    {
                        "$ref": "#/components/schemas/BROADCASTED_DEPLOY_TXN"

Can we erase BROADCASTED_DEPLOY_TXN?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1284 at r1 (raw file):

                ]
            },
            "BROADCASTED_DECLARE_V1_TXN": {

Can we change the name to BROADCASTED_DECLARE_TXN_V1? Same for V2?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1305 at r1 (raw file):

                ]
            },
            "BROADCASTED_DECLARE_V2_TXN": {

Can this be BROADCASTED_DECLARE_V1_TXN + compiled_class_hash?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1826 at r1 (raw file):

                    },
                    "entry_points_by_type": {
                        "$ref": "#/components/schemas/DEPRECATED_CAIRO_ENTRY_POINTS"

Do we use DEPRECATED_CAIRO_ENTRY_POINTS anywhere else? If not, can we flatten it here? Same for SIERRA_ENTRY_POINTS and CAIRO_ENTRY_POINTS?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1837 at r1 (raw file):

                ]
            },
            "CONTRACT_ENTRY_POINTS": {

Where do we need CONTRACT_ENTRY_POINTS?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1841 at r1 (raw file):

                "properties": {
                    "CONSTRUCTOR": {
                        "$ref": "#/components/schemas/CAIRO_ENTRY_POINT_LIST"

Can we avoid the list types as well?

Code quote:

CAIRO_ENTRY_POINT_LIST

[ArielElp]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @anatgstarkware)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1162 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Can we erase BROADCASTED_DEPLOY_TXN?

Yep, removed

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1305 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Can this be BROADCASTED_DECLARE_V1_TXN + compiled_class_hash?

Classes are a different object (deprecated vs new)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1826 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Do we use DEPRECATED_CAIRO_ENTRY_POINTS anywhere else? If not, can we flatten it here? Same for SIERRA_ENTRY_POINTS and CAIRO_ENTRY_POINTS?

Flattened

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1837 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Where do we need CONTRACT_ENTRY_POINTS?

Currently, it's not used. This boils down to whether or not we want get_compiled_class in the RPC. Thinking more about it, I think that the answer is no.

1. Full nodes will need it internally to execute (until there's some other way to execute Sierra, which is futuristic for now)
2. This is more of an implementation detail; I'm not sure a consumer has an interest in the Cairo code, which only serves the purpose of being able to prove executions of that class.
3. You can compile the Sierra locally to get it (hopefully, if you use the same compiler version, you get the same result)

Removed for now (this + list + entry point type), WDYT?

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1841 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Can we avoid the list types as well?

See above

[anatgstarkware]

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1158 at r3 (raw file):

                    },
                    {
                        "$ref": "#/components/schemas/DEPLOY_TXN"

Do we still need the DEPLOY_TXN? and the DEPLOY_TXN_RECEIPT?

[ArielElp]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @anatgstarkware)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1158 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

Do we still need the DEPLOY_TXN? and the DEPLOY_TXN_RECEIPT?

We're still gonna have them in historical blocks, these gotta stay until regenesis.

[anatgstarkware]

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1794 at r4 (raw file):

                }
            },
            "COMPILED_CONTRACT_CLASS": {

so we don't use this anywhere?

[eitan-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @anatgstarkware and @ArielElp)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1794 at r4 (raw file):

                }
            },
            "COMPILED_CONTRACT_CLASS": {

Not sure who this file is used by, but in the code, it is referenced as "compiled class" (without the contract)

Code quote:

COMPILED_CONTRACT_CLASS

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1910 at r4 (raw file):

                    "poseidon",
                    "ecdsa",
                    "ec_op",

Theis enum is different order in the repo, maybe we should keep it in the same order.
The builtins order from left to write (according to os.cairo in starknet): pedersen range_check ecdsa bitwise ec_op poseidon

[ArielElp]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @anatgstarkware and @eitan-starkware)

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1794 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, anatgstarkware (anatg) wrote…

so we don't use this anywhere?

removed

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1794 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, eitan-starkware (Eitan) wrote…

Not sure who this file is used by, but in the code, it is referenced as "compiled class" (without the contract)

removed from the RPC

---

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1910 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, eitan-starkware (Eitan) wrote…

Theis enum is different order in the repo, maybe we should keep it in the same order.
The builtins order from left to write (according to os.cairo in starknet): pedersen range_check ecdsa bitwise ec_op poseidon

removed this, currently compiled_class is not represented in the RPC at all

[anatgstarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArielElp and @eitan-starkware)

[ArielElp]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArielElp)

[ArielElp]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ArielElp)