Add support for StarkNet v0.7.1 about starknet-rs

[xJonathanLEI]

v0.7.1 is now released to alpha-goerli. I'm starting to work on support for this version.

[milancermak]

The way I understood is it's us that should add a new fee field when creating a transaction. It's not something that's coming in the API response.

[xJonathanLEI]

Hmmmm sounds.... reasonable. I mean I appreciate StarkWare providing the docs for preparation for the upcoming version, but it would be much nicer if it can be more detailed...

[xJonathanLEI]

Looks like OpenZeppelin updated their Account contract. I'll start working on task 1.

[milancermak]

100% with you that __execute__ looks ugly :)

Since the lib doesn't yet have a public release, I'd go with execute. I think it's more future-proof (as you say, the now deprecated execute will be eventually dropped) and more Rusty, a better abstraction.

[xJonathanLEI]

For task 1 I still haven't figured out where the field has been added to LOL. @milancermak any idea?

[milancermak]

So probably a new field to InvokeFunctionTransaction, with a hardcoded value of 0 for now.

[xJonathanLEI]

I just tried adding a fee field to InvokeFunctionTransactionRequest and setting it to 0 or "0" or "0x0", and got:

{
  "code": "StarkErrorCode.SCHEMA_VALIDATION_ERROR",
  "message": "Schema validation failed",
  "problems": {
    "fee": [
      "Unknown field."
    ]
  }
}

Looks like it's not how it works...

[xJonathanLEI]

Got clarification from StarkWare that this is rather a change on the account contract. We will probably need to wait for OpenZeppelin to update their account contract first, otherwise we'll just be sending invalid signatures.

[xJonathanLEI]

One thing up for discussion though. In the latest version of IAccount, the execute function is renamed from execute to __execute__ to deliberately break old clients (thanks to selectors not taking parameters into account :)))). Should we also name the function __execute__?

For __execute__:

1. Using this makes it clear to developers that it's the new version of execute being called.

Against __execute__:

1. It looks very ugly, well, at least to me...
2. I expect the old execute to be dropped eventually, so the point for __execute__ above will be irrelevant anyways. (I mean, it's already dropped by the account contract, and I'm talking about ecosystem support like wallets and previously deployed accounts.)

If we go against __execute__, we can always document that it's __execute__ being called. It's obviously gonna be way less... obvious though.

@milancermak WDYT?

[xJonathanLEI]

There you go. Full v0.7.1 support is here!