Document sparse contracttype unpacking (SDK v28) - #2763
Draft
leighmcculloch wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Conversation
leighmcculloch
force-pushed
the
document-contracttype-sparse-unpacking
branch
2 times, most recently
from
August 18, 2026 17:58
12746c9 to
9704602
Compare
|
Preview is available here: |
1 similar comment
|
Preview is available here: |
|
Preview is available here: |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Document the soroban-sdk v28 change (CAP-86, rs-soroban-sdk#2006) that makes
#[contracttype]struct unpacking tolerant of missing and extra map fields, updating the custom types reference and rewriting the parts of the storage migration guide that no longer hold.Why
Before v28, a map had to match a struct's fields exactly or the host trapped, which is the whole premise the storage migration guide's versioned-enum and version-marker patterns exist to work around, and that premise is now false for the guide's own example of adding an
Optionfield or removing a field.