It's completely possible I am missing something, but I couldn't find a good way to access the address of the account which owns the bytecode being executed while using the Inspector::step hook. It would be really convenient if the contract stored on the interpreter also contained the bytecode address like the CallInputs it is constructed from do.
It's completely possible I am missing something, but I couldn't find a good way to access the address of the account which owns the bytecode being executed while using the Inspector::step hook. It would be really convenient if the contract stored on the interpreter also contained the bytecode address like the CallInputs it is constructed from do.