Decode uint128 & uint64#177
Conversation
|
Hi @KeKs0r , thanks for the PR! Can you provide a test which failed before but succeeds now? |
|
Checking the other tests, those are quite e2e-ish. So directly against chain. And none of the currently included ABIs have those fields. Should I just add a new ABI that I know uses those fields? |
Sure, you're right that I did not design the tests well previously because they are very e2e. If you can rip out and make a focused test with an ABI that includes |
|
Hey @KeKs0r I forgot to follow-up here. Was there anything more you needed to get unblocked writing those tests? Thanks for the PR 🙏 |
You're spot on, these tests I've written are not using proper mocking nor proper separation of concerns. I'm doing at-least one step to improve this now with #201 |
|
I think we're almost ready to solve this. We can make a test which validates we match We currently have this logic all crammed into the other functions but this task should also separate it properly |
Instead of listing individual uint cases (uint256, uint120), use
startsWith('uint') / startsWith('int') pattern matching to handle all
valid Solidity integer types (uint8-uint256, int8-int256).
Closes #177
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2 participants
Adding Decoding for
uint128anduint64.