feat: no lazy init (contract parameters) #1985
Conversation
verytactical
force-pushed
the
contract-init
branch
from
2515a2a to
2d24c36
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed this changes with @verytactical and agreed on adding more comments here, especially for field names, such as separate, contract and some others.
Also now new constructor requires to add fake ASTNode of init() function, but this cannot be bypassed easily, so it will stay as is.
Besides new constructor lacks the possibility to make some arguments optional, but we decided not to implement that in this PR not to overcomplicate it.
verytactical
force-pushed
the
contract-init
branch
from
ad4b50d to
cf451ee
Compare
src/types/resolveDescriptors.ts
Outdated
| ); | ||
| } else { | ||
| throwCompilationError( | ||
| "Cannot define init() on a contract that has contract initializer", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
contract parameters
| @@ -365,6 +365,24 @@ exports[`resolveDescriptors should fail descriptors for getter-outside-contract | |||
| " | |||
| `; | |||
|
|
|||
| exports[`resolveDescriptors should fail descriptors for init-on-contract-no-fields 1`] = ` | |||
| "<unknown>:6:5: All fields must be defined in contract initializer if it exists | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as contract parameters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cannot use contract fields along with contract parameters
| `; | ||
|
|
||
| exports[`resolveDescriptors should fail descriptors for init-on-contract-no-init 1`] = ` | ||
| "<unknown>:6:5: Initialization was already defined on contract Contract |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
init() cannot be used along with contract parameters
anton-trunov
changed the title
Issue
Closes #1756.
Checklist