test: streamline the v0 version tx for invoke tx towards code dedup in test utils

[ArniStarkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[ArniStarkware]

• test: streamline the v0 version tx for invoke tx towards code dedup in test utils #1930 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.18%. Comparing base (e3165c4) to head (4fe6120).
Report is 419 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1930       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   40.10%   77.18%   +37.07%     
===========================================
  Files          26      103       +77     
  Lines        1895    13560    +11665     
  Branches     1895    13560    +11665     
===========================================
+ Hits          760    10466     +9706     
- Misses       1100     2639     +1539     
- Partials       35      455      +420     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArniStarkware)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/test_utils/invoke.rs line 103 at r3 (raw file):

            contract_address: invoke_args.sender_address,
            signature: invoke_args.signature,
            entry_point_selector: *EXECUTE_ENTRY_POINT_SELECTOR,

Why do you use this instead of selector_from_name(EXECUTE_ENTRY_POINT_NAME)? What are the differences? I see the comment says there were issues with the computation, can you elaborate?

Code quote:

 *EXECUTE_ENTRY_POINT_SELECTOR

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ayeletstarkware)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/test_utils/invoke.rs line 103 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ayeletstarkware (Ayelet Zilber) wrote…

Why do you use this instead of selector_from_name(EXECUTE_ENTRY_POINT_NAME)? What are the differences? I see the comment says there were issues with the computation, can you elaborate?

The issue is that the function selector_from_name is from the blockifier. This is Starknet API. We don't want SNAPI to be dependent of blockifier (the dependency is reversed).

[ayeletstarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved

---

crates/starknet_api/src/test_utils/invoke.rs line 103 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

The issue is that the function selector_from_name is from the blockifier. This is Starknet API. We don't want SNAPI to be dependent of blockifier (the dependency is reversed).

can this be used in blockifier as well?