fix(PE-7196): add msg.reply to all apis #72
Conversation
| ["Message-Id"] = msg.Id, | ||
| }) | ||
| ) | ||
| ao.send(notices.addForwardedTags(msg, { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where is ao.send? and does it have the wrapper logic for using msg.reply?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be clear, this memory blowup happens not during compile time or at any other message, but rather on eval specifically, and specifically of our bundled lua.
I did investigate as to why, and it seems that adding utils.Send increases the complexity of the function call, expanding the memory it uses on the stack, causing the stack to give a memory out of bounds error - thats my theory, anyway. I think for the moment we should leave utils.Send out of this call and further investigate in another PR/SPIKE as to what options are available to us here.
The main solution - apart from not including the util - is to simply raise the stack memory. However I don't want to create a lua script that can be eval'd into one module and not another, especially since thats how our current evolve workflow works on the arns portal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As for where ao.send is, its from AOS - ao is available as a global. Its actually what utils.Send uses internally.
| ["Message-Id"] = msg.Id, | ||
| }) | ||
| ) | ||
| ao.send(notices.addForwardedTags(msg, { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ao.send(notices.addForwardedTags(msg, { | |
| utils.Send(notices.addForwardedTags(msg, { |
| Recipient = Owner, | ||
| }) | ||
| ) | ||
| ao.send(notices.credit({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ao.send(notices.credit({ | |
| utils.Send(notices.credit({ |
atticusofsparta
force-pushed
the
PE-7196-reply
branch
from
14fa67b to
a7e4c53
Compare
| @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ function ant.init() | |||
| local recipient = msg.Tags.Recipient | |||
| if msg.From ~= Owner then | |||
| utils.Send(msg, { | |||
| Target = msg.From, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to set this in utils.Send automatically if not present rather than making it the responsibility of the caller?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes it would make sense to add it there - technically its not needed for msg.reply, and we only add this because of ao.send
If we don't, we actually send an invalid message if msg.reply is not present.
Im actually wondering if we even need to wrap ao.send like this, because we KNOW what AOS module we are building. This wrapping pattern is only for backwards compatibility with older AOS process, and with our reassign-to-evolve pattern it will be a new module of our choice anyways.
Also we may not always want to "reply". Sometimes we just want to send. Using reply probably doesnt hurt, but IDK what future integrations may be influenced with these extra tags.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and in fact if my suspicions are correct, in that adding function calls is messing with stack memory, then we wanna be careful about that.
No description provided.