feat: update hardhat-gas-reporter peer dependency to ^2.0.0

[itasli]

• Because this PR includes a bug fix, relevant tests have been included.
• Because this PR includes a new feature, the change was previously discussed on an Issue or with someone from the team.
• I didn't do anything of this.

---

Updates the peer dependency for hardhat-gas-reporter from ^1.0.8 to ^2.0.0 to support the latest versions and resolve dependency conflicts.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 880ee6b

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[fvictorio]

Hi @itasli, thanks for this PR, but I think this is a bit more involved than just bumping the dependency. Also, it's a significant change, so we need to do some other things around it; I opened an issue with the details.

I'm tentatively closing this because I believe this is something we'll need to do ourselves. We'll try to prioritize it, because I understand this means that the toolbox and the v2 version of the gas reporter plugin can't be used together without some annoying workarounds (like telling npm to ignore the toolbox peer dependency version range).

[itasli]

Hi @fvictorio

Thanks for the detailed feedback! I totally understand your approach this kind of significant dependency update requires more careful consideration than just a simple version bump.

Before submitting the PR, I did run through the available tests to make sure there weren't any breaking changes, and everything seemed to pass without issues.

I appreciate you opening an issue to track this properly and prioritizing it.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasoning.

[fvictorio]

Good to know in advance that there won't be any surprises when testing this manually, that should help us prioritize this!