API refactory

[mpetrunic]

current api naming is not adequate and causing confusion with the users as they aren't sure which method to call. I would propose following methods:

• bridge - calls /solution/call without contract call
• bridgeAndCall - calls /solution/call with contract call
• aggregateBalance - calls get_solutions_aggregation method. If there is only one network whitelisted, it will call bridge
• aggregateBalanceAndCall - calls post_solutions_aggregation If there is only one network whitelisted, it will call bridgeAndCall

[itsbobbyzzz168]

@mpetrunic @BeroBurny Liviu and I were talking through this, and suggest for the bleeding obviousnessssss

aggregateBalance -> bridgeAggregateBalance
aggregateBalanceAndCall -> bridgeAggregateBalanceAndCall

[mpetrunic]

@mpetrunic @BeroBurny Liviu and I were talking through this, and suggest for the bleeding obviousnessssss

aggregateBalance -> bridgeAggregateBalance aggregateBalanceAndCall -> bridgeAggregateBalanceAndCall

Ooops, I've just seen this. This is a bit innacurate, since aggreateBalance doesn't neccessarilly involve bridge, it could involve, unwrapping, amm or just transfer on the same chain

[BeroBurny]

what about solution?

• solution
• solutionWithCall
• aggregateSolutions
• aggregateSolutionsWithCall

[mpetrunic]

@BeroBurny that would make sense, but I think it might be confusing for the user. Maybe we need to align naming with intent more.
For example:

• transfer - that's our single step step solution
• transferWithHook - that's our single step solution + hook/call/xcall in the end
• poolAssetOnDestination - that would be aggregateBalance
• poolAsserOnDestinationWithHook - that would be aggregateBalance with Xcalls/cslls
  and in the future:
• sweepFunds - would be new intent to collect funds from all the supported chains

@MakMuftic @itsbobbyzzz168 WDYT?

[MakMuftic]

Yep like the last suggestion 👍 I see it is already applied 🎉