Allow debug configs to be added to launch.json from the Invocation Panel. Fixes #45

[djnicholson]

No description provided.

[devhawk]

testing this PR with https://github.com/ngdseattle/cneo-sample/, the contract appears twice in the Invoke COntract UI even though there is only one compiled AVM file in the workspace

[devhawk]

How do you associate UTXO assets with a contract invocation?

[devhawk]

Adding a launch configuration blows away any comments that have been added to the launch.json file. (like this one)

[devhawk]

I left several comments that need to be addressed

[djnicholson]

testing this PR with https://github.com/ngdseattle/cneo-sample/, the contract appears twice in the Invoke COntract UI even though there is only one compiled AVM file in the workspace

I think maybe you have a different version of the contract (same methods but different hash) deployed. This is being detected from the Neo Express JSON file and shown along side the one detected from the AVM. Should I show the contract hash in the UI to make this more obvious?

We should resolve neo-project/neo-express#31 and neo-project/neo-express#20 to make the end-to-end experience better.

[djnicholson]

How do you associate UTXO assets with a contract invocation?

I haven't done that yet (and I left #46 to reflect that there are still debug options we do not support).

We need some design thought around this one, for example:

• Is it Ok for the user to just specify an amount (e.g. "20 NEO") or do we need to build some sort of UTXO picker where they pick specific UTXOs (and possible specify change)
• How should we determine what UTXOs are available? If Neo Express is already running it is easy (we make RPC calls). If Neo Express is not running do we start it? What if the user also picked a checkpoint?

[djnicholson]

Adding a launch configuration blows away any comments that have been added to the launch.json file. (like this one)

I'm using the VS Code API to change the launch.json file (see addToLaunchJson in invocationPanel.ts). I decided this was better than doing JSON.stringify(JSON.parse(...)) as this only blows away comments within the configurations array (other comments in the file are left alone). If we want comments within the array to be safe then I need to find a JSON parsing/serialization library that is comment-aware.

[devhawk]

I think maybe you have a different version of the contract (same methods but different hash) deployed. This is being detected from the Neo Express JSON file and shown along side the one detected from the AVM. Should I show the contract hash in the UI to make this more obvious?

That was it - the hash in my .abi.json file doesn't match the hash in the neo-express.json file.

No, let's figure out the end-to-end w/ express better before tackling this edge case

[devhawk]

How do you associate UTXO assets with a contract invocation?

I haven't done that yet (and I left #46 to reflect that there are still debug options we do not support).

OK, I'm good with leaving this for #46

We need some design thought around this one, for example:

• Is it Ok for the user to just specify an amount (e.g. "20 NEO") or do we need to build some sort of UTXO picker where they pick specific UTXOs (and possible specify change)

I would prefer specifying the amount and using getunspents to figure out the specific UTXOs

• How should we determine what UTXOs are available? If Neo Express is already running it is easy (we make RPC calls). If Neo Express is not running do we start it? What if the user also picked a checkpoint?

There's no way for devtracker to get the UTXO info if neo-express isn't running. we could add a command line switch for neo-express to dump the valid UTXOs for an account like get coins but offline. Let's address as part of the larger end-to-end

[devhawk]

I'm still worried about the comments getting blown away, but am approving for now. Can we open an issue to track fixing the comment issue?

[djnicholson]

I'm still worried about the comments getting blown away, but am approving for now. Can we open an issue to track fixing the comment issue?

#118