Skip to content

Release v4.0.0-rc#1415

Merged
smiasojed merged 9 commits intomasterfrom
v4.0.0-rc
Dec 1, 2023
Merged

Release v4.0.0-rc#1415
smiasojed merged 9 commits intomasterfrom
v4.0.0-rc

Conversation

@smiasojed
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@smiasojed smiasojed commented Nov 30, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Added

  • Add schema generation and verification - #1404
  • Compare Environment types against the node - #1377
  • Detect INK_STATIC_BUFFER_SIZE env var - #1310
  • Add verify command - #1306
  • Add --binary flag for info command - #1311
  • Add --all flag for info command - #1319
  • Add contract language detection feature for info command - #1329
  • Add warning message when using incompatible contract's ink! version - #1334
  • Add workspace support -#1358
  • Add Storage Total Deposit to info command output - #1347
  • Add dynamic types support - #1399
  • Basic storage inspection command - #1395

Changed

  • Bump subxt to 0.32.0 - #1352
  • Remove check for compatible scale and scale-info versions - #1370
  • Bump ink to 5.0.0-rc - #1415

Fixed

  • Do not allow to execute calls on immutable contract messages - #1397
  • Improve JSON Output for Upload and Remove Commands - #1389
  • Fix for a Url to String conversion in info command - #1330

@smiasojed smiasojed marked this pull request as ready for review November 30, 2023 13:17
SkymanOne
SkymanOne reviewed Nov 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
crates/extrinsics/src/env_check.rs
))
.done()])
.returns(ReturnTypeSpec::new(None))
.returns(ReturnTypeSpec::new(TypeSpec::default()))
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@SkymanOne SkymanOne Nov 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The default value is:

ReturnTypeSpec::new(
    TypeSpec::with_name_str::<ink_primitives::ConstructorResult<()>>("ink_primitives::ConstructorResult")
)

Not sure if ink_primitives is imported.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@smiasojed smiasojed Nov 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is not imported; that is why I used the default.

ascjones
ascjones approved these changes Nov 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ascjones ascjones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

crates/transcode/src/lib.rs
Comment on lines +411 to +412
let return_ty = msg_spec.return_type().ret_type();
self.decode(return_ty.ty().id, data)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ascjones ascjones Nov 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to double check that this still works by doing a cargo contract call on a message with a return value

SkymanOne
SkymanOne suggested changes Nov 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@SkymanOne SkymanOne left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to update readme to include contract-analyzer in the release instructions.

@SkymanOne SkymanOne mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2023
Merged
@smiasojed
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

smiasojed commented Dec 1, 2023

Need to update readme to include contract-analyzer in the release instructions.

I think we need to do it in a separate commit since you've already published crates. It's better to have a tagged commit that reflects the published crates. Please let me know what you think.

@ascjones
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ascjones commented Dec 1, 2023

Need to update readme to include contract-analyzer in the release instructions.

I think we need to do it in a separate commit since you've already published crates. It's better to have a tagged commit that reflects the published crates. Please let me know what you think.

The tagged commit will be from the merge commit into master so it is okay to include it here, and it is not a code change. If it were a code change then I would agree not to include it once it is published.

@smiasojed smiasojed requested a review from SkymanOne December 1, 2023 09:45
@smiasojed smiasojed merged commit bb6f0ce into master Dec 1, 2023
@smiasojed smiasojed deleted the v4.0.0-rc branch December 1, 2023 11:31
@smiasojed smiasojed mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@ascjones ascjones ascjones approved these changes

@cmichi cmichi cmichi approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@SkymanOne SkymanOne SkymanOne approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@smiasojed @ascjones @cmichi @SkymanOne