Web3 beta50 #553
Closed
Web3 beta50 #553
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Deploy preview for augmint ready! Built with commit 73e51df |
3 tasks
|
closing this in favour for a future PR from scratch |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Nature of the PR: chore
Issues to resolve/test
getPastEvents()filtering to: returns events with different to: address where only the from: address matches - resulting duplicate items in the transfer historyganacheTakeSnapshotandganacheRevertSnapshotfunctions stopped working in Cypress - To be investigatedcontractInstance.getPastEventsthrowsTypeError: Cannot read property 'fromBlock' of undefinedif options not passed. Adding{ fromBlock: 0 }resolves it. check code if it's required.tx.on("receipt")behaviour changed: it only resolves aftertransactionConfirmationBlocksnumber of confirmations received. Change tx resolving logic and what options should we pass to provider to Web3 See this conversationWeb3.utilsis not valid anymore useweb3Instance.utils(check code if it's used anywhere).options.address(not checksum capitalised anymore) instead of.addressat web3 contract instance. Has been addressed in this PRIs connection necessary to test? If so which network?