Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEATURE REQUEST]: wagmi v1 upgrade #135

Open
1 task done
coopbri opened this issue May 31, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
1 task done

[FEATURE REQUEST]: wagmi v1 upgrade #135

coopbri opened this issue May 31, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@coopbri
Copy link

coopbri commented May 31, 2023

Is there an existing issue for this?

  • I have searched the existing issues

Feature

wagmi v1 was released recently, replacing ethers with viem, supporting BigInt natively, removing Goerli (deprecated testnet) support, and other useful changes.

Migration guide: https://wagmi.sh/core/migration-guide

User Stories

As a developer, I would like ssx to use wagmi v1 to take advantage of its modern features (and without needing to implement workarounds to juggle multiple versions of wagmi, such as peer deps).

As a user, I would love to use software that uses up-to-date dependencies for security and UX benefits.

@skgbafa
Copy link
Contributor

skgbafa commented Jun 1, 2023

Hey @coopbri! We've looked at migrating to Wagmi v1 — it's on our radar and roadmap! We are supporters of Wagmi and it's important to us to make sure our libraries are really easy to use alongside great packages like Wagmi. The transition to viem away from ethers introduces a bit of complexity to our library's implementation (which aims to have broad compatibility). We are working on this and look forward to pushing out updates

@coopbri
Copy link
Author

coopbri commented Jun 1, 2023

Awesome! No worries at all, I know it's a big feat. My team is working on migrating over right now and it's definitely a multi-day process haha.

@jxom
Copy link

jxom commented Jun 2, 2023

The transition to viem away from ethers introduces a bit of complexity to our library's implementation

Happy to help with this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants