splitArgsAndOptions with single argument containing options

[Skanislav]

Describe the bug

export const splitArgsAndOptions = (args: ArgsOrCalldataWithOptions) => {
  const options = [
    'blockIdentifier',
    'parseRequest',
    'parseResponse',
    'formatResponse',
    'maxFee',
    'nonce',
    'signature',
    'addressSalt',
  ];
  const lastArg = args[args.length - 1];
  if (typeof lastArg === 'object' && options.some((x) => x in lastArg)) {
    return { args: args as ArgsOrCalldata, options: args.pop() as ContractOptions };
  }
  return { args: args as ArgsOrCalldata };
};

When it's called during buildCall, and the contract expects a single argument which is struct with a property that overlaps this list of hardcoded options. Resulting in this:

Error: Invalid number of arguments, expected 1 arguments, but got 0
    at _CallData.validate (index.ts:95:13)
    at default.ts:236:23
    at getCalldata (default.ts:115:10)
    at Contract.call (default.ts:234:22)
    at Contract.get_proposal_hash (default.ts:61:21)

To Reproduce

I exported ABIs using abi-wan-kanabi for this contracts and tried to call the get_proposal_hash. I spotted the error because the similar call worked for the function encode_proposal_data that accepts two arguments and works just fine.

Expected behavior

Desktop (please complete the following information):

• Browser & version Chrome Version 124.0.6367.208
• Node version v20.14.0
• Starknet.js version 6.17.0
• Network devnet

[penovicp]

It looks like it should be doable to refactor splitArgsAndOptions to accept and use the corresponding ABI information to discern if the options object is used rather than through duck typing. The only snag is that the possible inputs are fairly flexible with allowing both structured and precompiled values so extra care needs to be taken to cover all the scenarios.

If this is a major blocker for you there is a silver lining in the aforementioned flexibility in that using the output of CallData.compile(...) for the method input or some other approach from the docs can be used as a workaround.

[poolcleaner6]

Perhaps splitArgsAndOptions could include a check for the expected argument type from the ABI. This could help avoid errors when the contract expects a single struct with properties that overlap with options