Support for renaming JS methods when re-exporting

[palas]

Changelog

- description: |
    Add support for renaming JS methods re-exporting and use the functionality to simplify wallet testnet methods
  type:
  - breaking
  projects:
  - cardano-wasm

Context

See #1003 (comment). Names of functions exported by the API need to be unique, but we can rename them as we re-export them for the JS API function.

How to trust this PR

The tests passing gives strong guarantee the renaming is done correctly. Other than that, it could be that there is some file that wasn't updated that we missed. And also it would be a matter of checking whether the comments and code design is sensible.

I would look at the commit separately too, because the first one is a refactoring, and the second one is a simple change.

Checklist

• Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
• New tests are added if needed and existing tests are updated. See Running tests for more details
• Self-reviewed the diff

[Jimbo4350]

In the methodParams field is it possible to encode the idea of sum type? I.e require a network magic number or default to mainnet?

[palas]

In the methodParams field is it possible to encode the idea of sum type? I.e require a network magic number or default to mainnet?

@Jimbo4350, the easiest we could do is have a nullable magic number parameter (if it is the last parameter I think it could also be optional), and if you don't provide it we can default to mainnet. Still we can want the renaming functionality. Because that way we can have methods with the same name in different objects, like toCbor, otherwise we'll need txToCbor and certToCbor, because they are in the same namespace. This will still be the case at the WASM level, but we can structure them better for JS

[carbolymer]

Suggested change

	, methodSimpleName :: String
	, methodSimpleName :: Maybe String

I think it should default to methodName. I'd throw

instance IsString s => IsString (Maybe s) where 
  fromString = Just . fromString

into the mix with OverloadedStrings. I think we tried that in the past, but it was too magical to the tweag folks.

[carbolymer]

Those duplicated fields look like a good use case for some kind of smart constructor. But then you have unnamed fields and it would be nice to undo that with something like named but then I guess it turns into a new can of worms. 😄