Anton Trunov

Hey @a-bahdanau, the cookbook format usually implies every snippet to be self-contained. Would be nice if Tact users could just copy-paste examples and have something immediately compilable

Let's resolve the merge conflicts and see how well Copilot is doing here :)

> While trying to fix this I also found out that in case of nested structs, these are returned from getters in a "flatten" format, e.g. (int, int, int) for...

It's either all structs are flattened or there is no flattening at all

I like the idea

@Gusarich So do I understand correctly `Tracker` essentially does the following under the hood? ``` tracker.parse( await contract.send( treasure.getSender(), { value: toNano("10") }, { $$type: "Deploy", queryId: 0n }, ),...

We could do that, but I don't think having lots of unused info is really beneficial for tests. - Checking a transaction happened is good - Recording gas usage is...

I don't really know what I'm supposed to get from this part of the snapshot:

> so you suggest moving from snapshot-based testing to explicit checks like expect(result).toHaveTransaction(...)? I'd say we don't even need to have `toHaveTransaction` for most of the tests, since I wouldn't...

> but anyway, to check the state of contract in a "meaningful" way we need to add get-methods to most of the e2e test contracts like in https://github.com/tact-lang/tact/issues/579 I like...