The apply command now works only from a serialized CBOR data (instead of a UPLC syntax). So it is no longer possible to specify arbitrary cbor terms through the CLI. I believe it to be an acceptable limitation for now; especially given that Aiken will never generate blueprints with non-data terms at the interface boundary.
These were needed before as a way to _partially deserialize_
blueprints. Indeed, some commands required accessing information of
the blueprint, but not necessarily the schema. So out of laziness (or
cleverness?), we only deserialized validators as serde::Value and
achieved that through the use of generics.
Now that validators and schemas have proper deserialisers, we can
simply deserialize a blueprint.
TODO: Our serialisation/deserialisation is safe with regards to
itself; i.e. it roundtrips. However, we only supports a subset of the
specified blueprint format. For example, we would fail to deserialize
blueprints that have inline data-schemas (we only use references).
* move uplc::ast::builder to uplc::builder
* rename aiken_lang::uplc to aiken_lang::gen_uplc
* move aiken_lang::air and aiken_lang::builder to aiken_lang::gen_uplc
as submodules
Co-authored-by: Kasey White <kwhitemsg@gmail.com>
* rename force_wrap to force
* add a bunch of builder methods to Term<Name>
* refactor one tiny location to show off builder methods
* split generate into `generate` and `generate_test`
* create wrap_as_multi_validator function
Co-authored-by: Kasey White <kwhitemsg@gmail.com>
This was a bit tricky and I ended up breaking things down a lot and
trying different path. This commit is the result of the most
satisfying one.
It introduces a new 'concept' and types: Definitions and Reference.
These elements are meant to reflect JSON pointers and JSON-schema
definitions which we now use for pretty much all user-defined
data-types.
In fact, Schemas are no longer inlined, but are always referencing
some schema under "definitions".
This indirection is necessary in order to cope with recursive types.
And while it's only truly necessary for recursive types, using it
consistently makes it both easier to produce and easier to consume.
---
The blueprint generation for recursive types here also works thanks to
the 'Definitions' data-structure wrapper around a BTreeMap. This uses
a strategy where:
(1) schemas are only generated if they haven't been seen before
(2) schemas are marked as seen BEFORE actually being generated (to
effectively stop a recursive generation).
This relies on one important aspect: the key must be uniquely
identifying a given schema. Which means that we have to monomorphize
data-types with generic parameters also here, and use keys that are
specialized in one data-type.
---
In this large overhaul we've also lost one thing which I didn't bother
re-introducing yet to keep the work manageable: title for record
fields. Before, we use to pull those from record constructor when
available, yet now, every record constructor has been replaced by a
`$ref`. We could theoritically attach a title to the reference. I'll
try to quickly add that in a later commit.
Having the data's schema be optional at the level of the 'Schema' did not allow to represent cases where there would be an opaque data at an arbitrary nesting. So I introduced a new variant 'Opaque' on 'Data' to fill that gap.
This has been removed from the CIP-0057 specification since validators
are often re-used for multiple purposes (especially validators with
arity 2). It's misleading to assign a validator a purpose since the
purpose distinction actually happens _within_ the validator itself.
This caused me some trouble. In my first approach, I ended up having
multiple traces because nested values would be evaluated twice; once
as condition, and once as part of the continuation.
To prevent this, we can simply evaluate the condition once, and return
plain True / False boolean as outcome. So this effectively transforms any
expression:
```
expr
```
as
```
if expr { True } else { trace("...", False) }
```
This is still a bit clunky as the interface is expecting parameters in UPLC form and we don't do any kind of verification. So it is easy to shoot oneself in the foot at the moment (for example, to apply an integer into something that should have received a data). To be improved later.
Without that, we have no way to distinguish between fully applied
validators and those that still require some hard-coded parameters.
Next steps is to make it easier to apply parameters to those, as well
as forbid the creation of addresses of validators that aren't fully
qualified.
microproofs