Bump blockchain and kliento deps #182
Conversation
37ng
commented
Jan 20, 2022
•
37ng
commented
- Bump celo-blockchain to v1.5.1
- Replace SendRawTransaction with SendTransaction
- Use golang:1.17-alpine & celo-blockchain@v1.5.1 node in Dockerfile
- Change go directive to 1.15 to align with celo-blockchain and go-ethereum
- Update README.md
Due to changes in celo-blockchain@v.1.5.0::ethClient
- Bump celo-blockchain to v1.5.0 - Use celo-blockchain@v1.5.0 node in Dockerfile - Change go directive to 1.15 to align with celo-blockchain and go-ethereum - Update README.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The version of kliento that is set in go.mod is not correct.
The tag although marked as upgrading to celo blockchain v1.5.0 actually is pointing at an earlier commit.
But even then we don't currently have a correct commit to point to, because the latest commit on master celo-org/kliento@80b383b contains contract bindings generated for the core contracts at a version different to core-contracts.v5
So before we can consider merging this we need to fix kliento
|
@YoduYodu I've deleted the v0.2.1 tag in kliento. So when kliento is updated with the correct contract bindings we can tag that as v0.2.1 |
Agree, just made this PR as draft. |
|
@YoduYodu the branch has conflicts |
|
Hey @YoduYodu I would suggest splitting this PR into one that updates deps and one that just handles bumping the version. This is definitely not just a bugfix, functionality has been changed since the last release so I think the version should be at least 0.9.0. @eelanagaraj I see you have made a lot of releases, just wondering what you would suggest for the version number. |
37ng
changed the title
|
Hey @YoduYodu What I meant by bumping the version was the change from v0.8.5 -> v0.8.6 I think that could be done separately from updating the code and the golang and celo-blockchain version changes. With regards to choosing the version number, I assumed that Semantic Versioning is being used because we are specifying the version with 3 dot separated numbers, otherwise just a single number would suffice. And in the case of Semantic Versioning the minor number is changed when backwards compatible functionality is added, which I would say has been done because new command flags have been added since the last release. Having looked at the changes, I'm actually not sure if they are backwards compatible, if they are not it should be a major version change, but then I think we would have to agree on the meaning of backwards compatible for this repo. |
