Allow declaring with deployment

[cptartur]

Stack:

• Allow declaring with deployment #3783 ⬅
• Allow disabling printing in wait_for_tx #3782
• Change declare arguments #3781
• Remove unused response structs #3780
• Handle redeclaration in estimate fee, closes #3253 #3779

⚠️ Part of a stack created by spr. Do not merge manually using the UI - doing so may have unexpected results.

[franciszekjob]

There's lots of new code and logic here, which makes our branches even more overgrown 😅 . We should either move it to deploy function, or have separate wrapper (e.g. deploy_with_declare), which later calls deploy.

[cptartur]

The way I wanted this to be implemented is that deploying with declaring is composed only using top level APIs, but they remain two entirely separate functions.

We could do a separate refactor of main and move out things that don't have to be there to separate modules. But I don't think hiding top level logic for functions is beneficial.

[cptartur]

This logic is copied from declare and could technically be shared, but otherwise logic for declaring in deploy and normal declare are slightly different

            let manifest_path = assert_manifest_path_exists()?;
            let package_metadata = get_package_metadata(&manifest_path, &declare.package)?;
            let artifacts = build_and_load_artifacts(
                &package_metadata,
                &BuildConfig {
                    scarb_toml_path: manifest_path,
                    json: cli.json,
                    profile: cli.profile.unwrap_or("release".to_string()),
                },
                false,
                ui,
            )
            .expect("Failed to build contract");

[franciszekjob]

Why can't we have deploy_with_declare and deploy wrappers, which will share some common logic (most likely extracted into another function)?

[franciszekjob]

nit: I think we should present this as deployment by contract name rather than deploying and declaring at the same time. The automatic declare is just a side effect, which allows for a simpler way to deploy without needing the class hash.

[cptartur]

I don't think we should be hiding the fact that this makes 2 separate transactions. This is meant to be used as an convenience function, not magic to abstract how starknet works from users.

[franciszekjob]

I don't think we should be hiding the fact that this makes 2 separate transactions.

Definitely, that isn't my intention 😄

What I'm saying is that it's more suitable to promote this command as deployment by contract name. Also, title alone "Deploying and Declaring at the Same Time" may even suggest that this happens simultaneously (I know it's described below).

How about this small change?

### Deploying By Contract Name

You can deploy contract by passing `--contract-name` flag instead of `--class-hash`.
Under the hood, if the passed contract was never declared to starknet, it will run the [declare](../starknet/declare.md)
command first and then execute the contract deployment.

[cptartur]

Sounds good, will change it

[franciszekjob]

Wdyt about mentioning this in sncast 101?

[franciszekjob]

Why can't we have deploy_with_declare and deploy wrappers, which will share some common logic (most likely extracted into another function)?