Composer integration #457

PatrickDinh · 2025-11-12T03:47:27Z

Proposed Changes

…ation

neilcampbell · 2025-11-14T15:15:58Z

packages/transact/src/transactions/transaction.ts

              return result
            })()
          : undefined,
+        rejectVersion: bigIntCodec.decodeOptional(transactionDto.aprv),


Suggested change

rejectVersion: bigIntCodec.decodeOptional(transactionDto.aprv),

rejectVersion: numberCodec.decodeOptional(transactionDto.aprv),

neilcampbell · 2025-11-14T15:16:08Z

packages/transact/src/transactions/app-call.ts

+  /**
+   * The lowest application version for which this transaction should immediately fail. 0 indicates that no version check should be performed.
+   */
+  rejectVersion?: bigint


Suggested change

rejectVersion?: bigint

rejectVersion?: number

neilcampbell · 2025-11-14T15:16:21Z

packages/transact/src/encoding/transaction-dto.ts

  apep?: number

+  /**  Reject version */
+  aprv?: bigint | number


Suggested change

aprv?: bigint | number

aprv?: number

neilcampbell · 2025-11-14T15:19:20Z

src/transaction/legacy-bridge.ts

+      // Populate the composer with method calls
      if ('transactions' in transaction) {
-        transaction.methodCalls.forEach((m, i) => sendParams.atc!['methodCalls'].set(i + baseIndex, m))
+        transaction.methodCalls.forEach((m, i) => sendParams.transactionComposer!['methodCalls'].set(i + baseIndex, m))


This feels hacky. Maybe it's ok because it's in the legacy code.

yeh it's pretty hacky. The problem comes from here

const transaction = await txn(transactionCreator)(params)

this causes the trasaction to be a txnWithSigner => when it's added to the composer, the methodCalls map isn't updated.

neilcampbell · 2025-11-14T15:22:12Z

src/transaction/perform-transaction-composer-simulate.ts

+  // The state of the atc is unknown, whether it has resource populated or not
+  // In this version, we call composer.simulate which doesn't do resource population
+
+  const simulateOptions = {


These options appear to be different from the original.

neilcampbell · 2025-11-16T18:25:00Z

src/types/composer.ts

-   * Builds an ABI method call transaction and any other associated transactions represented in the ABI args.
-   * @param includeSigner Whether to include the actual signer for the transactions.
-   *  If you are just building transactions without signers yet then set this to `false`.
+   * Compose all of the transactions without signers and return the transaction objects directly along with any ABI method calls.


This does return signers as well

The jsdocs confused me as first too because this method returns the signer Map. I think it means that the transactions returned doesn't have signers attached. Should I change the docs?

neilcampbell · 2025-11-16T18:34:02Z

src/types/composer.ts


+    const builtTransactions = await this.buildTransactions()
+    const transactions =


Doesn't buildTransactions take care of grouping?

No, buildTransactions doesn't do grouping. Grouping is applied in build, after resource population and fee coverage.

You mentioned this makes me think that the names buildTransactions and build are confusing. I kept them because:

buildTransactions existed in the composer. It does similar functionality.

build existed in the composer, but private. In main, resource population + fee coverage happen in send, for this version, I lifted them to build
I'm happy to find better names for them but that means breaking changes.

neilcampbell · 2025-11-16T18:37:02Z

src/types/composer.ts

      const error = new Error(errorMessage)

      if (Config.debug) {
-        await Config.events.emitAsync(EventType.TxnGroupSimulated, { simulateResponse })
+        await Config.events.emitAsync(EventType.TxnGroupSimulated, { simulateTransaction: simulateResponse })


The utils-ts-debug repo provides a handler for this event, so we need to think about migration and breaking changes here.

I'll add a note to the migration doc

neilcampbell · 2025-11-16T18:39:58Z

src/types/composer.ts

+    })
+
+    // Sign transactions in parallel for each signer
+    const signerEntries = Array.from(signerGroups)


Can you double check this logic against algosdk to ensure it has the same behaviour?

I assume you mean the logic to sign transactions in parallel. The sdk does the same

const batchedSigs = await Promise.all( orderedSigners.map(([signer, indexes]) => signer(txnGroup, indexes)) );

neilcampbell · 2025-11-16T18:41:44Z

src/types/composer.ts

+  return (
+    ctxn.type === 'appCall' ||
+    ctxn.type === 'methodCall' ||
+    (ctxn.type === 'txnWithSigner' && ctxn.data.txn.type === TransactionType.AppCall)


What about asyncTxn?

I'll remove this function, it isn't needed anymore. In build (where it was used) I have access to the built transaction, I can check for the transaction type directly.

PatrickDinh · 2025-11-19T03:26:18Z

src/types/composer.ts

@@ -547,19 +234,19 @@ export interface BuiltTransactions {
  signers: Map<number, algosdk.TransactionSigner>
 }

+class BuildComposerTransactionsError extends Error {


@neilcampbell I created this error type for errors during build transactions. I think this is helpful because before this, in debug mode, if something goes wrong during resource population, we will need to run simulate again in the error handler. Using this error type, we can surface to simulation result to the error handler => eliminate the need to simulate again.

PatrickDinh · 2025-11-19T03:27:30Z

src/types/app-client.spec.ts

    expect(clonedAppClient.appId).toBe(appClient.appId)
    expect(clonedAppClient.appName).toBe(appClient.appName)
-    expect((await clonedAppClient.createTransaction.bare.call()).sender).toBe(testAccount2.addr.toString())
+    expect((await clonedAppClient.createTransaction.call({ method: 'default_value', args: ['test value'] })).transactions[0].sender).toBe(


I had to update this test to use valid transaction params because the transaction creator now calls composer.build(), resulted in a simulate call.

PatrickDinh · 2025-11-20T00:00:20Z

src/types/composer.ts

-    const failedGroup = simulateResponse?.txnGroups[0]
-    if (failedGroup?.failureMessage) {
-      const errorMessage = `Transaction failed at transaction(s) ${failedGroup.failedAt?.join(', ') || 'unknown'} in the group. ${failedGroup.failureMessage}`
+    const simulateResponse = await this.algod.simulateTransaction(simulateRequest)


@neilcampbell The name of the return type of simulateTransaction is SimulateTransaction while algosdk uses SimulateResponse. I think we should update our algod to use SimulateResponse too.

PatrickDinh added 30 commits October 31, 2025 14:53

review + notes

43381a2

wip - integration

d9e89a4

Merge branch 'feat/transact-integration' into composer-integration

075667f

wip - add transactions into the composer

6278023

wip - build transactions

cc3447e

wip - build app call

71d11d4

wip - done app call

447bba9

wip - method call

0fcd051

wip - build method calls done

5112899

wip - resource population

3943837

wip - done simulate

7a59dfb

wip - composer send

7d55cb8

wip - refactor to keep the public interface

653c14d

comment out test - can build and check types now

498d8ec

wip - fixing tests

d69dc7d

wip - fix tests

52292a2

wip - fix signer for nested txn

9c836c0

update error message

d105e4c

Merge branch 'feat/transact-integration' into composer-integration

f64509d

Merge branch 'feat/transact-integration' into composer-integration

9026768

Merge branch 'feat/transact-integration' into composer-integration

d4ee22f

fix types

d2bcf37

reject version

282cd24

access list for method call

5459220

wip - remove atc

e7bb6e2

wip - convert calls to atc to transaction composer

d93034f

wip - remove atc - check types good

8f9b54b

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/decoupling' into composer-integr…

b9d5634

…ation

oops missed one

e75fd10

fix import paths

ecbde70

PatrickDinh added 6 commits November 13, 2025 09:33

fix box type

874ec31

update snapshot tests

4352eaf

review migration guide

6f088dc

wip - more review

568a34f

some more refactor

e843cc4

another round of review

4cfba14

PatrickDinh marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2025 00:37

PatrickDinh added 3 commits November 13, 2025 11:27

apply the extra page fix

f52215e

delete files from sdk

f8a4283

review notes

ed682ad

neilcampbell reviewed Nov 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

PatrickDinh added 4 commits November 17, 2025 10:18

wip - PR feedback

d855cc7

pr review - refactor composer to hold maxFee for raw txns

163815f

wip - pr feedback

f16ced1

wip - PR feedback

09000c2

PatrickDinh force-pushed the composer-integration branch from db98a4b to 09000c2 Compare November 17, 2025 04:30

PatrickDinh added 10 commits November 17, 2025 14:53

PR feedback - add fee coverage tests

af4c7c0

use shallow clone

e97cf06

wip - refactor build methods + simulate

fc3c33d

test snapshot

da2c47f

TODOs

f6c0c62

wip - review

0bdabbe

wip - TODO

fc1f2e0

more TODO

d44e14a

review

a76eebe

fix

fc1ac3a

PatrickDinh commented Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

PatrickDinh commented Nov 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

PatrickDinh added 2 commits November 20, 2025 10:07

refactor + test

add078d

fix performTransactionComposerSimulate

1658920

	rejectVersion: bigIntCodec.decodeOptional(transactionDto.aprv),
	rejectVersion: numberCodec.decodeOptional(transactionDto.aprv),


		const builtTransactions = await this.buildTransactions()
		const transactions =

Composer integration #457

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Composer integration #457

Conversation

PatrickDinh commented Nov 12, 2025

Proposed Changes

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants