[E2E] Add create_call_builder for testing on-chain contracts

[cmichi]

Why?

Allows for easy writing of an E2E test that runs against an already deployed contract. Our typical examples always have the whole instantiation workflow with creating a contract instance, constructor & co.

So you can e.g. take a snapshot of Aleph Zero, upgrade your contract there to a new ink! version, and then run your E2E test suite against this updated contract to assert that everything will still work.

[ascjones]

Maybe we can make a simple free function which constructs from an account id, extracting this code here

<<Contract as ContractCallBuilder>::Type as FromAccountId<E>>::from_account_id(
    self.account_id.clone(),
)

https://github.com/paritytech/ink/blob/cmichi-reexport-contractcallbuilder/crates/e2e/src/contract_results.rs#L52

To replace

    type CallBuilderType = <Flipper as ink_e2e::ContractCallBuilder>::Type;
    let call_builder = CallBuilderType {
        account_id: acc_id
    };

with e.g.

let call_builder = create_call_builder::<Flipper>(acc_id);

[github-actions]

🦑 📈 ink! Example Contracts ‒ Changes Report 📉 🦑

These are the results when building the integration-tests/* contracts from this branch with cargo-contract and comparing them to ink! master:

Contract	Upstream Size (kB)	PR Size (kB)	Diff (kB)	Diff (%)	Change
basic-contract-caller	3.303	3.303	0	0	➖
basic-contract-caller/other-contract	1.583	1.583	0	0	➖
call-builder-return-value	9.169	9.169	0	0	➖
call-runtime	2.061	2.061	0	0	➖
conditional-compilation	1.49	1.49	0	0	➖
contract-storage	7.568	7.568	0	0	➖
contract-terminate	1.329	1.329	0	0	➖
contract-transfer	1.689	1.689	0	0	➖
custom-allocator	7.692	7.692	0	0	➖
dns	7.318	7.318	0	0	➖
e2e-call-runtime	1.296	1.296	0	0	➖
e2e-runtime-only-backend	1.881	1.881	0	0	➖
erc1155	14.237	14.237	0	0	➖
erc20	6.918	6.918	0	0	➖
erc721	9.873	9.873	0	0	➖
events	5.258	5.258	0	0	➖
flipper	1.639	1.639	0	0	➖
incrementer	1.504	1.504	0	0	➖
lang-err-integration-tests/call-builder-delegate	2.638	2.638	0	0	➖
lang-err-integration-tests/call-builder	5.066	5.066	0	0	➖
lang-err-integration-tests/constructors-return-value	1.985	1.985	0	0	➖
lang-err-integration-tests/contract-ref	4.629	4.629	0	0	➖
lang-err-integration-tests/integration-flipper	1.815	1.815	0	0	➖
lazyvec-integration-test	4.616	4.616	0	0	➖
mapping-integration-tests	7.999	7.999	0	0	➖
mother	12.741	12.741	0	0	➖
multi-contract-caller	6.106	6.106	0	0	➖
multi-contract-caller/accumulator	1.378	1.378	0	0	➖
multi-contract-caller/adder	1.968	1.968	0	0	➖
multi-contract-caller/subber	1.988	1.988	0	0	➖
multisig	21.688	21.688	0	0	➖
payment-channel	5.659	5.659	0	0	➖
sr25519-verification	1.142	1.142	0	0	➖
static-buffer	1.654	1.654	0	0	➖
trait-dyn-cross-contract-calls	2.793	2.793	0	0	➖
trait-dyn-cross-contract-calls/contracts/incrementer	1.545	1.545	0	0	➖
trait-erc20	7.294	7.294	0	0	➖
trait-flipper	1.49	1.49	0	0	➖
trait-incrementer	1.614	1.614	0	0	➖
upgradeable-contracts/delegator	3.151	3.151	0	0	➖
upgradeable-contracts/delegator/delegatee	1.609	1.609	0	0	➖
upgradeable-contracts/set-code-hash	1.743	1.743	0	0	➖
upgradeable-contracts/set-code-hash/updated-incrementer	1.721	1.721	0	0	➖
wildcard-selector	2.846	2.846	0	0	➖

Link to the run | Last update: Mon Jan 29 15:13:30 CET 2024

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (8b5b497) 53.70% compared to head (337d298) 53.72%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2075      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.70%   53.72%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         223      223              
  Lines        7040     7040              
  Branches     3141     3120      -21     
==========================================
+ Hits         3781     3782       +1     
+ Misses       3259     3258       -1     

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

[smiasojed]

I'm just thinking if this logic could be moved to an e2e/integration test for Ink instead of the CI workflow. This change would enable us to run it locally.

[cmichi]

You mean as an ink! e2e test that directly uses the cargo-contract crates to build and instantiate?

[cmichi]

So my idea with the e2e test in flipper was to illustrate how to test a contract on-chain, this doesn't necessarily require having to build the contract beforehand.

Since the integration-tests/ end up on ink-examples, I'd like to avoid putting non-user relevant things there.