Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @lior-stark)

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1258 at r1 (raw file):

                ]
            },
            "INVOKE_TXN_SPECIFIC_RECEIPT_PROPS": {

how about naming it INVOKE_TXN_RECEIPT_PROPERTIES?

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1355 at r1 (raw file):

                    },
                    {
                        "$comment": "Used for deploy and declare transaction receipts",

I think it's easier to read if we're more explicit about it, i.e. have a PENDING_DEPLOY_TXN_RECEIPT/PENDING_DECLARE_TXN_RECEIPT types that are references to the common pending properties.

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ArielElp and @lior-stark)

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1258 at r1 (raw file):

Done.

api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1355 at r1 (raw file):

yes, that was the initial version.
but it's really redundant, it's creating two objects that are structured exactly the same, and don't add anything to the schema.
note that I did add a comment here for future readers.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), all discussions resolved (waiting on @lior-stark)

Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), all discussions resolved (waiting on @lior-stark)