Contracts pallet: Bump Runtime API

[jasl]

Detail discussed at polkadot-js/api#5324

We need to bump API version for the change of #12429

[jasl]

@jacogr does this change enough?

[jacogr]

Yes, I believe this is spot-on to indicate the changes from Weight to Option<Weight> in the newer versions of the runtime api.

[jasl]

Yes, I believe this is spot-on to indicate the changes from Weight to Option<Weight> in the newer versions of the runtime api.

I just revisit the babe api you mentioned

I see it left V1 API for compatibility

#[changed_in(2)]
fn configuration() -> BabeConfigurationV1;

Should I do for Contracts?

I also try to update my polkadot.js PR, if I do like this

export const runtime: DefinitionsCall = {
  ContractsApi: [
    {
      methods: objectSpread({
        call: {
          description: 'Perform a call from a specified account to a given contract.',
          params: [
            {
              name: 'origin',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'dest',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'value',
              type: 'Balance'
            },
            {
              name: 'gasLimit',
              type: 'Option<Weight>'
            },
            {
              name: 'storageDepositLimit',
              type: 'Option<Balance>'
            },
            {
              name: 'inputData',
              type: 'Vec<u8>'
            }
          ],
          type: 'ContractExecResult'
        },
        instantiate: {
          description: 'Instantiate a new contract.',
          params: [
            {
              name: 'origin',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'value',
              type: 'Balance'
            },
            {
              name: 'gasLimit',
              type: 'Option<Weight>'
            },
            {
              name: 'storageDepositLimit',
              type: 'Option<Balance>'
            },
            {
              name: 'code',
              type: 'CodeSource'
            },
            {
              name: 'data',
              type: 'Bytes'
            },
            {
              name: 'salt',
              type: 'Bytes'
            }
          ],
          type: 'ContractInstantiateResult'
        }
      }, V1_V2_SHARED),
      version: 2
    },
    {
      methods: objectSpread({
        call: {
          description: 'Perform a call from a specified account to a given contract.',
          params: [
            {
              name: 'origin',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'dest',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'value',
              type: 'Balance'
            },
            {
              name: 'gasLimit',
              type: 'u64'
            },
            {
              name: 'storageDepositLimit',
              type: 'Option<Balance>'
            },
            {
              name: 'inputData',
              type: 'Vec<u8>'
            }
          ],
          type: 'ContractExecResultV1'
        },
        instantiate: {
          description: 'Instantiate a new contract.',
          params: [
            {
              name: 'origin',
              type: 'AccountId'
            },
            {
              name: 'value',
              type: 'Balance'
            },
            {
              name: 'gasLimit',
              type: 'u64'
            },
            {
              name: 'storageDepositLimit',
              type: 'Option<Balance>'
            },
            {
              name: 'code',
              type: 'CodeSource'
            },
            {
              name: 'data',
              type: 'Bytes'
            },
            {
              name: 'salt',
              type: 'Bytes'
            }
          ],
          type: 'ContractInstantiateResultV1'
        }
      }, V1_V2_SHARED),
      version: 1
    }
  ]
};

it always generate V1 API-Argument, Am I missing something?

[jasl]

I learned from #12633
I guess I need to re-add old definitions for compatibility

@athei could you review again?

[jacogr]

On the 1 + 2 versioning... In this case I believe it is not needed at all. The Babe 1/2 thing (like the BlockBuilder) is really used inside the runtime as well and upgrades there necessitates the use of different version. In the case of contracts, it is all clear on that front. And since the contract RPCs are removed, it is also not used from the node side, or at least probably should not be...

... not an expert on the above, so others could weigh in.

The definitions snippet you gave above is basically exactly what I would have done to cater for both v1/v2 versions on the JS side. (Open to other ideas there as well... not saying it is the best, but well, it is the same approach I have been following - the call support is still relatively new on that front, so have not had the same amount of learnings that applies elsewhere, so it most-probably should/will evolve over time...)

[jasl]

On the 1 + 2 versioning... In this case I believe it is not needed at all. The Babe 1/2 thing (like the BlockBuilder) is really used inside the runtime as well and upgrades there necessitates the use of different version. In the case of contracts, it is all clear on that front. And since the contract RPCs are removed, it is also not used from the node side, or at least probably should not be...

... not an expert on the above, so others could weigh in.

The definitions snippet you gave above is basically exactly what I would have done to cater for both v1/v2 versions on the JS side. (Open to other ideas there as well... not saying it is the best, but well, it is the same approach I have been following - the call support is still relatively new on that front, so have not had the same amount of learnings that applies elsewhere, so it most-probably should/will evolve over time...)

got it, I revoke that commit...

[athei]

I see it left V1 API for compatibility

#[changed_in(2)]
fn configuration() -> BabeConfigurationV1;

Should I do for Contracts?

No. AFAIK what this does is to actually call into an older runtime to execute this older version. I don't see why this is necessary for contracts. Also, the majority of other runtime APIs do not use those old versions. I think we are fine.

[jasl]

I see it left V1 API for compatibility

#[changed_in(2)]
fn configuration() -> BabeConfigurationV1;

Should I do for Contracts?

No. AFAIK what this does is to actually call into an older runtime to execute this older version. I don't see why this is necessary for contracts. Also, the majority of other runtime APIs do not use those old versions.

I'm sorry to disturb you many times... I just removed that change