use structs instead of viaIR

[YouStillAlive]

Alternative way to fix stack too deep error.

Solidity can generate EVM bytecode in two different ways: Either directly from Solidity to EVM opcodes (“old codegen”) or through an intermediate representation (“IR”) in Yul (“new codegen” or “IR-based codegen”).

Reasons to use structs.

• Setting viaIR to true in compiler settings results in zero coverage. link
• Hardhat don't completely support the viaIR option yet. link

[github-actions]

Gas Test Report 📊

The gas test results are as follows:

LockDealNFT

Contract	Method	Min	Max	Avg	# calls
LockDealNFT	approvePoolTransfers(bool)	22087	43999	33043	8
LockDealNFT	renounceOwnership()	-	-	23339	1
LockDealNFT	safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,bytes)	303756	1296212	645768	28
LockDealNFT	safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256)	117895	353244	193343	25
LockDealNFT	setApprovedContract(address,bool)	28194	50594	47721	52
LockDealNFT	setBaseURI(string)	51149	79688	70175	3
LockDealNFT	transferFrom(address,address,uint256)	101218	119668	110443	2
LockDealNFT	transferOwnership(address)	-	-	28694	1
LockDealNFT	updateAllMetadata()	-	-	24533	2

Simple Providers

Contract	Method	Min	Max	Avg	# calls
DealProvider	createNewPool(address[],uint256[],bytes)	259161	289961	270810	68
LockDealProvider	createNewPool(address[],uint256[],bytes)	294062	309580	304803	15
TimedDealProvider	createNewPool(address[],uint256[],bytes)	354236	382971	366262	32

Advanced Providers

Contract	Method	Min	Max	Avg	# calls
BundleProvider	createNewPool(address[],uint256[][],bytes)	915184	929184	928760	33
RefundProvider	createNewRefundPool(address[],uint256[],bytes,bytes)	1245415	1350070	1339261	30

Builders

Contract	Method	Min	Max	Avg	# calls
SimpleBuilder	buildMassPools(address[],((address,uint256)[],uint256),uint256[],bytes)	2047749	27348022	12395982	18
SimpleRefundBuilder	buildMassPools(address[],((address,uint256)[],uint256),uint256[][],bytes,bytes)	4576691	45384353	22388250	18

Deployments

Contract	Min	Max	Avg	% of limit
BundleProvider	-	-	2476192	1.9 %
CollateralProvider	3197413	3197425	3197422	2.5 %
DealProvider	-	-	1494667	1.1 %
ERC20Token	-	-	789284	0.6 %
LockDealNFT	5122322	5187557	5125109	3.9 %
LockDealProvider	1637276	1637288	1637285	1.3 %
RefundProvider	-	-	3109551	2.4 %
SimpleBuilder	-	-	1137247	0.9 %
SimpleRefundBuilder	-	-	2170304	1.7 %
TimedDealProvider	-	-	1873839	1.4 %

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6a6a591) 0.00% compared to head (d5d66b4) 99.86%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on ironblocks.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           ironblocks     #367       +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        0.00%   99.86%   +99.86%     
===============================================
  Files              22       22               
  Lines             723      726        +3     
  Branches          179      179               
===============================================
+ Hits                0      725      +725     
+ Misses            723        1      -722     

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