Contribution: missing Object content getters

[unmaykr-aftermath]

Hi folks. I've noticed that sui_sdk_types::types::Object is missing any way of accessing its inner package/struct contents.

Personally, I'm mostly interested in the BCS bytes of the inner MoveStruct. I see that its other attributes are unnecessary from the user's POV, since we already have the Object::version and Object::object_type methods.

Therefore I'd like to contribute with a new method to Object:

pub fn as_struct(&self) -> Option<(&StructTag, &[u8])>;

Naming up for discussion ofc :)

Notice I included the struct tag in the return, otherwise callers run into scenarios like:

let ObjectType::Struct(tag) = object.object_type() else {
    // ...
};
let bcs = object.as_struct().expect("checked if struct above");

[bmwill]

What would your thoughts be on having the as_struct method return an Option<&MoveStruct> and then having the user use accessors on MoveStruct to be able to get out the Type and contents?

[unmaykr-aftermath]

What would your thoughts be on having the as_struct method return an Option<&MoveStruct> and then having the user use accessors on MoveStruct to be able to get out the Type and contents?

Sure, no immediate problem with it. I just usually err on the side of exposing the least possible or the types that I think are most stable. But to be fair I guess MoveStruct is one of those types. Probably a good idea to keep MoveStruct::has_public_transfer private to avoid any misinterpretation there (there's a comment clearly stating it's deprecated)

[unmaykr-aftermath]

I realize now that I was only looking at the source on docs.rs and missed the fact that a lot of private fields now have getters (added in 6969208). So I guess this contrib makes less sense now.

I still think pub fn as_struct(&self) -> Option<&MoveStruct> can be valuable as it's more ergonomic in certain scenarios compared to pattern matching with sui_sdk_types::types::ObjectData.

Probably a good idea to keep MoveStruct::has_public_transfer private to avoid any misinterpretation there (there's a comment clearly stating it's deprecated)

Also the comment above still stands