fix: passing in user call info from wallet#21937
Merged
Merged
Conversation
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
7ce723f to
e122c43
Compare
Contributor
Author
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
e122c43 to
da82dbb
Compare
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
da82dbb to
914e6ae
Compare
4 tasks
benesjan
changed the title
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 25, 2026
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
bfdd6d6 to
4a099a6
Compare
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 25, 2026
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 25, 2026
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 25, 2026
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 25, 2026
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
6040aa9 to
23d0f75
Compare
Thunkar
reviewed
Mar 26, 2026
Adds `getUserPrivateReturnValues(callIndex)` to `TxSimulationResult`
so callers no longer need to branch on `userCallOffset` being defined
or not. Also moves the offset calculation into
`createTxExecutionRequestFromPayloadAndFee` so it returns
`{ txRequest, userCallOffset }` instead of `{ txRequest, feeCallCount }`,
removing the leaky abstraction.
Closes F-483
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
benesjan
force-pushed
the
be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
branch
from
799fc41 to
3f5ec7f
Compare
…packages into be/refactor-user-call-offset-v2
Thunkar
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2026
Thunkar
left a comment
Thunkar
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
obama giving himself a medal meme
Collaborator
|
❌ Failed to cherry-pick to |
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2026
Cherry-pick of a186a55 with conflict markers preserved.
Thunkar
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2026
## Summary Backport of #21937 to v4-next. Robustly handles selection of return value when simulating private function by passing in the information of which call corresponds to the return value "user intends to get" from the wallet via `TxSimulationResultWithAppOffset`. ## Cherry-pick conflicts resolved - `batch_call.ts`: Removed stale `TxSimulationResult` import, used `TxSimulationResultWithAppOffset`, added non-null assertions for the now-optional `simulatedTx` variable - `batch_call.test.ts`: Added `NestedProcessReturnValues` import (needed by test), removed unused `HashedValues` ## Commit structure 1. Cherry-pick with conflict markers preserved 2. Conflict resolution 3. Build fix (non-null assertions) Original PR by @benesjan. ClaudeBox log: https://claudebox.work/s/c28e647e71336658?run=2
Thunkar
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2026
BEGIN_COMMIT_OVERRIDE cherry-pick: fix: passing in user call info from wallet (#21937) fix: passing in user call info from wallet (backport #21937) (#22459) fix: prepopulated scopes in simulateviaentrypoint (#22464) chore: backport #22464 (fix: prepopulated scopes in simulateviaentrypoint) to v4-next (#22470) docs: add macOS prerequisites and improve Node.js version guidance (#22408) END_COMMIT_OVERRIDE
critesjosh
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2026
Robustly handles selection of return value when simulating private function by passing in the information of which call corresponds to the return value "user intends to get" from the wallet. I am not super sure this is the best way to go because it seems messy that we have that info bolted on `TxSimulationResult` when `TxSimulationResult` is more of a lower-level thing that doesn't care about what is a user call and what is a fee call. If we don't do it like that then this PR would need to become much bigger as we need to somehow forward that information. Happy to redo this if we come up with a better approach. Closes https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-483/handle-simulation-with-nested-calls-and-without-account-contract --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: thunkar <gregojquiros@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Robustly handles selection of return value when simulating private function by passing in the information of which call corresponds to the return value "user intends to get" from the wallet.
I am not super sure this is the best way to go because it seems messy that we have that info bolted on
TxSimulationResultwhenTxSimulationResultis more of a lower-level thing that doesn't care about what is a user call and what is a fee call. If we don't do it like that then this PR would need to become much bigger as we need to somehow forward that information.Happy to redo this if we come up with a better approach.
Closes https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-483/handle-simulation-with-nested-calls-and-without-account-contract