chore!: remove deprecated submitAndAwait operation

[nedsalk]

• Closes Remove submitAndAwait from provider #3518

Summary

This PR removes the submitAndAwait operation which was previously deprecated.

Breaking Changes

• submitAndAwait operation was removed

After being deprecated since #3101, we have removed this operation altogether. Please use the submitAndAwaitStatus method instead which gives the same results as submitAndAwait. If you are interested in the deprecation/removal reasons, please refer to FuelLabs/fuel-core#2108.

// before
const response = await provider.operations.submitAndAwait(txRequest);

// after
const response = await provider.operations.submitAndAwaitStatus(txRequest);

Checklist

• All changes are covered by tests (or not applicable)
• All changes are documented (or not applicable)
• I reviewed the entire PR myself (preferably, on GH UI)
• I described all Breaking Changes (or there's none)

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
fuels-template	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 6, 2025 4:31pm
ts-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 6, 2025 4:31pm
ts-docs-api	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 6, 2025 4:31pm

[danielbate]

Please could you add a change to the breaking change notes, detailing what should be used now

[danielbate]

For breaking change notes, could we have something like this so it's more inline with other breaking change notes?

Breaking Changes

Provider.operations.submitAndAwait has been removed, since being deprecated in #3101. Please now use Provider.operations.submitAndAwaitStatus to perform this functionality. If you are interested in the deprecation/removal reasons, please refer to FuelLabs/fuel-core#2108.

// before
const response = await provider.operations.submitAndAwait(txRequest);

// after
const response = await provider.operations.submitAndAwaitStatus(txRequest);

[github-actions]

Coverage Report:

Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
77.82%(+0.01%)	70.58%(+0.11%)	75.37%(-0.05%)	77.78%(+0.01%)

Changed Files:

Ok	File (✨=New File)	Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
🔴	packages/account/src/account.ts	78.23% (-0.59%)	63.88% (+0.37%)	80% (+0%)	78.03% (-0.58%)
🔴	packages/account/src/providers/provider.ts	68.55% (-0.47%)	56.56% (-0.58%)	70.21% (-0.75%)	68.28% (-0.45%)
🔴	packages/account/src/providers/generated/operations.ts	94.7% (-0.07%)	100% (+0%)	83.67% (-0.33%)	95.12% (-0.06%)
🔴	packages/account/src/providers/transaction-response/transaction-response.ts	76.4% (-0.87%)	65.45% (+0%)	93.75% (+0%)	76.4% (-0.87%)
🔴	packages/fuels/src/cli/commands/deploy/createWallet.ts	92.3% (+0.64%)	75% (+0%)	100% (+0%)	92.3% (+0.64%)

[maschad]

LGTM but question - should the method be removed from the fuel-core-schema.graphql as well? I understand the method still exists in fuel-core but if it's no longer used on our side I wonder why it ought to be included here.

[petertonysmith94]

LGTM but question - should the method be removed from the fuel-core-schema.graphql as well? I understand the method still exists in fuel-core but if it's no longer used on our side I wonder why it ought to be included here.

The schema (fuel-core-schema.graphql) reflects the schema from fuel-core and therefore shouldn't be removed.

[maschad]

@petertonysmith94 I understand that aspect - the question was more in relation to why do we need to have an identical file on our side if we are not using all the methods, particularly if we are removing one.

[petertonysmith94]

@maschad I believe that codegen requires a schema to validate the operations/documents against - to ensure the operations are a subset of the schema.