Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

This issue now has a funding of 0.25 ETH (141.28 USD @ $565.13/ETH) attached to it.

• If you would like to work on this issue you can 'start work' on the Gitcoin Issue Details page.
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $8,977.61 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

Work has been started.

These users each claimed they can complete the work by 4 days, 12 hours ago. Please review their questions below:

1. ConnorChristie has started work.

• Q: I can begin working on these templates!

@rojosnow So it looks like 0x's abi-gen requires a lot of their libraries to actually run and function:

Do you want these libraries to be added as dependencies or should I look for an alternative and cleaner way to generate the typings? Or are you strictly only wanting to use abi-gen?

import { BaseContract } from '@0xproject/base-contract';
import { ContractArtifact } from '@0xproject/sol-compiler';
import { BlockParam, BlockParamLiteral, CallData, ContractAbi, DataItem, MethodAbi, Provider, TxData, TxDataPayable } from '@0xproject/types';
import { BigNumber, classUtils, logUtils, promisify } from '@0xproject/utils';
import { Web3Wrapper } from '@0xproject/web3-wrapper';
import * as ethers from 'ethers';
import * as _ from 'lodash';

@ConnorChristie -- We're not necessarily stuck with abi-gen. It'd be great if we can find an easy alternative to quickly generate the typings for the ABIs. Let us know your approach here before you proceed with it. Thanks!

@ConnorChristie Yes, as @eswarasai said, it's ok to use another solution. I'd like to get this process as automated as possible. I realize that might mean you're going to end up with a number of devDependencies to produce the output.

@eswarasai @rojosnow I have come across this package that only relies on web3 and itself while also generating a very streamline type file for each contract compared to abi-gen.

https://github.com/Neufund/TypeChain

Let me know what you think of that package! In addition, what tests would you like to see as part of this PR? Some unit tests possibly using truffle to deploy and exercise the contract methods?

@ConnorChristie -- I think this is the perfect solution for us. I'm not sure if we need any tests here. I'd revert to @rojosnow or @pelsasser on that matter. Thanks!

@ConnorChristie The TypeChain tool looks like a good start. Once the typedefs are generated from the ABIs, we need to verify they actually work. @eswarasai Thoughts on the easiest way to do that? It might require we pull in the local dev environment work that @pelsasser did on feature/dev-environment#5

@rojosnow -- For test cases, we can verify by confirming if the generated ts file has the set of type definitions + functions that are be expected to be used within the project.

@ConnorChristie -- How would you suggest we can accomplish that?

@pelsasser -- I'm wondering maybe we should move all this either to MARKETProtocol repo and add types there itself or create a new repo where we have all the typings of MARKETProtocol defined, instead of keeping them in MARKET.js.

@eswarasai Got you. I think separating this is an excellent idea. There is having the expected functions but you don't know if there are possible errors until you actually call them. Maybe is should live with MARKETProtocol so it can run a complete set of tests including using the typedefs.

my preference would be to have a seperated repo I think, not convinced of this, but it would allow us to separate the testing and use a much scaled down test environment from the MARKETProtocol behemoth

@pelsasser -- I've just created a repo types for this task.

@ConnorChristie -- Could you please fork the repo types and setup everything there? Also please do let us know how you'd like to proceed in order to get tests running. Thanks!

@eswarasai I think the idea of having the separate types repo is a very good idea! As for the testing, it might be a bit tricky because we can either:

• run e2e tests through truffle by actually deploying contracts to a test instance which would ensure the types are generated from the actual solidity ABI, or
• mock out the web3 instance passed to the types and use the unit tests to ensure everything matches the solidity contracts

Either way, the tests will require the knowledge of all the methods in each contract but the first actually tests the web3 interactions and the second only tests the interfaces.

Also, an upside to mocking out the web3 context is that we won't get caught up in dealing with the implementation of the contracts and will only need make sure the interfaces match and provide a valid passthrough. So if the contract implementation changes, these tests won't also have to be updated.

@ConnorChristie -- Thanks for putting out the possible options here. I'm in favour of having the web3 instance mocked out and just verifying whether the interfaces exist or not. Let us know if you need anything else in order to wrap this task. Thanks for being patient and helping us out here :)

@eswarasai Sounds good! The tests are going well but there is one minor thing, will you need types for every contract (i.e. Linkable, Ownable, ...) where they are parent contracts?

The reason I am asking is because the generated types include all the methods from their parents so the type classes have a lot of duplicated methods among them and it will take quite a while to write out all the tests for them. Maybe only include tests for the relevant contracts?

@ConnorChristie -- Understood. For the time being, I think we can focus on having type-defs for the contracts that are already being used in dApp as mentioned here -- https://github.com/MARKETProtocol/dApp/blob/develop/src/Contracts.js

@eswarasai PR has been opened but there are still a plethora of tests to add for all the other contracts, here is the link MARKETProtocol/types#1

I will continue working on the tests and update the PR as I go but if anyone else wants to help out, they may comment on the PR as to which tests they would like to help with!

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

Work for 0.25 ETH (150.91 USD @ $603.65/ETH) has been submitted by:

1. @ConnorChristie

@pelsasser please take a look at the submitted work:

• PR by @ConnorChristie

• Learn more on the Gitcoin Issue Details page
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
  $22,233.15 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

The funding of 0.25 ETH (151.63 USD @ $606.53/ETH) attached to this issue has been approved & issued to @ConnorChristie.

• Learn more at on the Gitcoin Issue Details page
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $22,125.36 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

⚡️ A tip worth 0.15 ETH (90.98 USD @ $606.53/ETH) has been granted to @ConnorChristie for this issue from pelsasser. ⚡️

The sender had the following public comments:

Thanks for helping out with getting all this set up, hope you will keep helping us out as we build out more of MARKET.js

Nice work @ConnorChristie! To redeem your tip, login to Gitcoin at https://gitcoin.co/explorer and select 'Claim Tip' from dropdown menu in the top right, or check your email for a link to the tip redemption page.

• $22125.36 in Funded OSS Work Available at: https://gitcoin.co/explorer
• Incentivize contributions to your repo: Send a Tip or Fund a PR
• No Email? Get help on the Gitcoin Slack

@ConnorChristie -- Thanks for all your hard work on getting the type-defs setup for the MARKET Contract ABIs. Would like to have many such contributions from you in the near future. Please do join our Discord channel :)