feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts #13565

pugachAG · 2025-05-16T19:46:11Z

This PR introduces host functions for deploying and using global contracts:

    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);
    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);
    fn promise_batch_action_use_global_contract(promise_index: u64, code_hash_len: u64, code_hash_ptr: u64);
    fn promise_batch_action_use_global_contract_by_account_id(promise_index: u64, account_id_len: u64, account_id_ptr: u64);

We use separate functions for deployments by hash and by account id to keep it consistent with DeployGlobalContract and DeployGlobalContractByAccountId action views. The same applies for using global contract by hash and by account_id.

Implementation is "monkey see, monkey do" based on other promise_batch_action_deploy_contract.

global_contract_host_fns runtime config param is added to ensure that new functions become available as part of protocol version 78.

Closes #13373.

nagisa · 2025-05-19T08:56:48Z

runtime/near-test-contracts/congestion-control-test-contract/src/lib.rs

@@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ extern "C" {
    // #######################
    fn promise_batch_action_create_account(promise_index: u64);
    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_contract(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);
+    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);
+    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);


Huh, why is deploying a global contract by an account id taking a full code to deploy and not the account id to reference?

when deploying global contract by account id we use account id of the signer (receipt's predecessor_id), also see DeployGlobalContractAction

@pugachAG Do you mean current_account_id where the contract is executed at? It is totally odd to deploy the contract to the signer/predecessor account!!!

Will it actually replace the currently deployed contract on the account_id?

Would you be open to naming it promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_identifiable_by_account_id?

Do you mean current_account_id where the contract is executed at?

Technically this corresponds to the receipt receiver account_id. DeployGlobalContract action requires predecessor_id to be equal to the receiver_id, so those should be the same.

Will it actually replace the currently deployed contract on the account_id?

No, deploying global contract does not replace anything, it just makes the contract available. UseGlobalContract does that.

Would you be open to naming it

I prefer to keep host function naming consistent with action naming. This name is derived from ActionView::DeployGlobalContractByAccountId

nagisa · 2025-05-19T11:40:45Z

Ah, I guess you may want to gate these host functions by some sort of a protocol feature/config in order to have these become available deterministically.

nagisa · 2025-05-19T11:42:13Z

runtime/near-vm-runner/src/imports.rs

+    promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,
+    promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,


Suggested change

promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,

promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,

#[deploy_global_host_fns] promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,

#[deploy_global_host_fns] promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,

or something along these lines. This will require a new field in the Config.

added global_contract_host_fns parameter

pugachAG · 2025-05-20T15:10:05Z

@nagisa I've added functions for using global contracts, could you please take another look: ed0f375

frol · 2025-05-21T19:18:09Z

runtime/near-test-contracts/congestion-control-test-contract/src/lib.rs

@@ -76,6 +76,10 @@ extern "C" {
    // #######################
    fn promise_batch_action_create_account(promise_index: u64);
    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_contract(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);
+    fn promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract(promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64);


I assume deploys the global contract that is identifiable by its hash, right?

What should be the receiver_account_id for the promise? Anything? Or MUST it be the current_account_id (like the regular deploy action)?

Will it replace the currently deployed contract on the signer, predecessor, or receiver account id?

I assume deploys the global contract that is identifiable by its hash, right?

that is correct

What should be the receiver_account_id for the promise? Anything? Or MUST it be the current_account_id (like the regular deploy action)?

receiver should be the same as predecessor, see check_actor_permissions for DeployGlobalContract action

Will it replace the currently deployed contract on the signer, predecessor, or receiver account id?

promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract doesn't replace anything, global contracts deployed by hash are not associated with any account. In case of promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id it replaces current contract deployed under receiver account id (which is required to be the same as predecessor).

Currently we copy `backwards_compatible_rs_contract.wasm` from `res` directory. This is no longer necessary since we no longer support old protocol versions. This PR changes that to make it compiled from `test-contract-rs` without `latest_protocol` feature enabled. This way we can make changes test contract in backward compatible way using `#[cfg(feature = "latest_protocol")]`. `backwards_compatible_rs_contract.wasm` is renamed to `legacy_backwards_compatible_rs_contract.wasm`, we keep it for the `test_near_vm_artifact_output_stability` test. We also change `resharding_v3` tests to use `backwards_compatible_rs_contract` instead of `rs_contract` because that test suite uses non-latest protocol version. So it imports host functions that might not yet be exposed in that protocol version which breaks it (#13565 is one example). Backward compatible contract should be used in such cases. --------- Co-authored-by: Simonas Kazlauskas <git@kazlauskas.me>

codecov · 2025-05-23T19:54:14Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.66667% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.43%. Comparing base (d74339f) to head (301b7c2).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
runtime/runtime/src/receipt_manager.rs	52.94%	16 Missing ⚠️
runtime/near-vm-runner/src/logic/logic.rs	93.26%	0 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
runtime/runtime/src/ext.rs	53.33%	7 Missing ⚠️
core/parameters/src/parameter_table.rs	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
core/parameters/src/view.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
runtime/near-vm-runner/src/logic/errors.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #13565       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    1.62%   69.43%   +67.81%     
===========================================
  Files         661      856      +195     
  Lines      115296   168433    +53137     
  Branches   115296   168433    +53137     
===========================================
+ Hits         1873   116957   +115084     
+ Misses     113367    46687    -66680     
- Partials       56     4789     +4733

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytests	`1.51% <0.00%> (?)`
pytests-nightly	`1.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
unittests	`69.06% <81.66%> (?)`
unittests-nightly	`68.98% <81.66%> (?)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

pugachAG requested a review from nagisa May 16, 2025 19:46

pugachAG requested a review from a team as a code owner May 16, 2025 19:46

pugachAG force-pushed the deploy-global-contract-host-functions branch 2 times, most recently from 2c3aebb to 13df8d0 Compare May 16, 2025 19:57

nagisa reviewed May 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

nagisa approved these changes May 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

nagisa reviewed May 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

pugachAG force-pushed the deploy-global-contract-host-functions branch 4 times, most recently from 41d9998 to b2336c4 Compare May 20, 2025 14:03

pugachAG changed the title ~~feat: add host functions for deploying global contracts~~ feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts May 20, 2025

pugachAG force-pushed the deploy-global-contract-host-functions branch 2 times, most recently from 2d0e0f8 to ed0f375 Compare May 20, 2025 14:57

pugachAG requested a review from nagisa May 20, 2025 15:10

pugachAG mentioned this pull request May 20, 2025

fix: build backward compatible test contract #13576

Merged

nagisa approved these changes May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

frol reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

pugachAG added 5 commits May 23, 2025 15:40

impl

5897660

add runtime param

76d2aeb

fix

443b813

impl use_global_contract

19d639f

use latest_protocol feature

1513598

pugachAG force-pushed the deploy-global-contract-host-functions branch from 392d662 to 1513598 Compare May 23, 2025 13:42

pugachAG added 2 commits May 23, 2025 17:57

revert unintended changes

c18217d

update snap

301b7c2

pugachAG added this pull request to the merge queue May 23, 2025

Merged via the queue into master with commit 0883a92 May 23, 2025
28 checks passed

pugachAG deleted the deploy-global-contract-host-functions branch May 23, 2025 20:30

frol mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2025

[Task] Deploy contract using global contract via contract code hash or account ID near/near-sdk-rs#1365

Closed

r-near mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2025

feat: Add global contract support (NEP-591) near/near-sdk-rs#1369

Merged

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts #13565

feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts #13565

Uh oh!

pugachAG commented May 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

nagisa May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

frol May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 22, 2025

Uh oh!

nagisa commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

nagisa May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

pugachAG commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

frol May 21, 2025

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 22, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented May 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

		promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,
		promise_batch_action_deploy_global_contract_by_account_id<[promise_index: u64, code_len: u64, code_ptr: u64] -> []>,

feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts #13565

feat: add promise batch host functions for global contracts #13565

Uh oh!

Conversation

pugachAG commented May 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nagisa May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

frol May 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nagisa commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

nagisa May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pugachAG commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

frol May 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pugachAG May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented May 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pugachAG commented May 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

frol May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented May 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading