Kevin Ingersoll
Kevin Ingersoll
We're exploring what it might look like for package-exportable representation of MUD resources, where the current MUD config is only a partial representation since systems are defined by what's on...
A key-only table doesn't make much sense, because there's nothing to write to the record data if there are no value fields. You can't even check for record existence in...
there's a bunch in there that are no longer relevant and make it hard to find real/maintained tags https://www.npmjs.com/package/@latticexyz/cli?activeTab=versions
like interfaces, abstract contracts can't be deployed so probably shouldn't have world interfaces created for them should we have a naming scheme for these like we do for interfaces (i.e....
instead of using solidity-parser lib, which has poor error messages (see https://github.com/latticexyz/mud/issues/3003)
@dhvanipa found a Garnet deploy with lots of RPC calls to resulted in a rate limit error: ``` ContractFunctionExecutionError: HTTP request failed. Status: 429 Details: {"code":-32016,"message":"over rate limit"} ``` this...
I tried something like this: ```ts it("should resolve to a plain object without TS functions", () => { const config = defineWorld({ ... }); attest(config).type.toString(/^((?!\w+
e.g. `excludeSystems` should be more like `deploy: {enabled: false}, codegen: {enabled: false}` also need to figure out how best to reference namespaced systems from within `accessList` will plan to revisit...
trying to fix an issue where its hard to understand where errors come from in CLI