starknet_api: add proof to rpc_invoke_v3

[avivg-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload workflows:

• Started at 2025-12-10T17:25:33Z
• Started at 2025-12-10T17:43:23Z
• Started at 2025-12-10T20:59:41Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T09:53:20Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T09:58:36Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T10:51:29Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T10:51:28Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T15:05:39Z
• Started at 2025-12-11T16:35:53Z

[avivg-starkware]

• starknet_api: add proof to rpc_invoke_v3 #10713 👈 (View in Graphite)
• apollo_protobuf: add proof to invoke v3 #10711
• apollo_rpc: add proof to invoke v3 #10710
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[meship-starkware]

@meship-starkware reviewed 5 of 7 files at r1, 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @avivg-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/rpc_transaction.rs line 577 at r2 (raw file):

    pub nonce_data_availability_mode: DataAvailabilityMode,
    pub fee_data_availability_mode: DataAvailabilityMode,
    // TODO(AvivG): Add proof facts.

You added the proof, and not the proof facts. Are we assuming we can get the facts from the proof?

Code quote:

// TODO(AvivG): Add proof facts.

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/cende/central_objects_test.rs line 1066 at r2 (raw file):

    // + internal_invoke_tx.proof.dynamic_size();

    assert_eq!(invoke_tx.size_bytes(), 488);

Consider using expect here

Code quote:

assert_eq!(invoke_tx.size_bytes(), 488);

[avivg-starkware]

Reviewable status: 7 of 8 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @noaov1)

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/cende/central_objects_test.rs line 1066 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, meship-starkware (Meshi Peled) wrote…

Consider using expect here

see reply in #10633 - WDYT?

---

crates/starknet_api/src/rpc_transaction.rs line 577 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, meship-starkware (Meshi Peled) wrote…

You added the proof, and not the proof facts. Are we assuming we can get the facts from the proof?

By mistake, thanks (I just merged a branch removing this, so after rebase it'll be gone anyway)

[noaov1]

@noaov1 reviewed 4 of 7 files at r1, 2 of 3 files at r2, 7 of 7 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @avivg-starkware and @meship-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_api/src/test_utils/invoke.rs line 164 at r3 (raw file):

        account_deployment_data: invoke_args.account_deployment_data,
        proof_facts: invoke_args.proof_facts,
        proof: Proof::default(),

What eill be the final value here?

Code quote:

        proof: Proof::default(),

[avivg-starkware]

crates/starknet_api/src/test_utils/invoke.rs line 164 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, noaov1 (Noa Oved) wrote…

What eill be the final value here?

As far as I'm aware, InvokeTxArgs is a test struct, so it'll probably have dummy values (received through InvokeTxArgs) rather than Proof::default().
Added the TODO