Consistent variant encoding and decoding

[davidyuk]

I have noticed that encoder accepts variants as { variant: 'Year', values: [] }, but decodes as { Year: [] }, would be better to use one approach in both cases, but I'm not sure which one is better.

[marc0olo]

@dincho what were your thoughts behind this, do you agree?

to be more explicit in this case I personally would probably favor { variant: 'Year', values: [] } as consistent representation

[davidyuk]

Can we use FateVariant externally?
Like contractMethod('arg1', 'arg2', new FateVariant('name', value1, value2)).
In this case would be: contractMethod(new FateVariant('Year'))

[dincho]

I've to take a look and I'll get back with recommendation

[dincho]

Can we use FateVariant externally?

No, I've provided an alternative data constructors in the related PR.

[dincho]

to be more explicit in this case I personally would probably favor { variant: 'Year', values: [] } as consistent representation

I was first lean to it as well, however the concise version somehow made a bit more sense in terms of public API, because you don't need to carry keys and keep them backward compatible.

Also I think the SDK is already utilizing that structure?

Please see the related PR