better described how gas is used when interacting with a smart contra… #11997
Conversation
stolab
requested review from
wackerow,
corwintines,
pettinarip,
minimalsm and
nhsz
as code owners
✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumorg ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @stolab, thanks for this! Sorry for delay. I like the direction of the content you're suggesting, just had a few thoughts on how we could clean it up a bit more. Let me know your thoughts of if you'd like someone else to resume from here. Thanks!
| @@ -160,7 +160,9 @@ The base fee will be burned **-0.00399 ETH** | |||
|
|
|||
| Validator keeps the tip **+0.000210 ETH** | |||
|
|
|||
| Gas is required for any smart contract interaction too. | |||
| In case of an interaction with a smart contract there is 2 cases possible: | |||
| 1. A `view` or `pure` function (as described in [solidity documentation](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/v0.8.23/contracts.html#view-functions)) is called from an EOA. In that specific case, no gas will be paid by the caller and the result will be returned. The underlying RPC call for this scenario is [eth_call](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/apis/json-rpc#eth_call) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see where you're going with this but it doesn't seem appropriate for where it is on the page. I might break this into it's own h3 header, ie ### Smart contract interactions {#smart-contract-interactions}
I would probably leave something similar to the comment you deleted as well though, just updated. Maybe "Gas is require for any transaction that alters the state of a smart contract" instead... weaving in the rest of the content.
Also, the link to eth_call should be relative: /developers/docs/apis/json-rpc#eth_call, and consider wrapping the term itself in single-backticks to style it as code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @wackerow, thanks for your feedback, I made changes accordingly.
I agree for the h3 header, but in that case I would suggest to rename the ### On gas {#on-gas} to ### Regular transactions {#regular-transactions}. Let me know what's your opinion is on this
Co-authored-by: Paul Wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wackerow <54227730+wackerow@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@wackerow Yes indeed your suggestion sounds much better ! thanks for the suggestion I merged them |
|
|
||
| Gas is required for any transaction that involves a smart contract. | ||
|
|
||
| Smart contracts can also contain functions known as [`view`](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/latest/contracts.html#view-functions) or [`pure`](https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/latest/contracts.html#pure-functions) functions, which do not alter the state of the contract. As such, calling these functions from an EOA will not require any gas. The underlying RPC call for this scenario is [`eth_call`](/developers/docs/apis/json-rpc#eth_call) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like we could simplify this whole thing and say that any attempt at state change requires gas, but reading Ethereum does not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes agree it could be simplified but as this is developer doc I thought it make sense to be a bit more explanatory. And as calling view and pure function internally cost gas I think that make sense to keep the part explaining the difference
However I agree that the underlying RPC call is probably not the most interesting/relevant thing
|
@wackerow, can we merge it then ? not sure why exactly one check is not successful |
|
Oops, apologies @stolab, didn't mean to let this sit. No worries about that check; not required (and a false negative). |
|
@all-contributors please add @stolab for content |
|
I've put up a pull request to add @stolab! 🎉 |
|
@wackerow thanks for your time and the discussion we had on this PR! |
Description
Suggestion to better describe how the gas is used when interacting with a smart contract. The documentation say
But there is a use case when you don't have to pay any gas when calling a smart contract function.
Related Issue
[Fixes #11989 ]