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

feat(hardhat-plugin,contracts): bump contracts versions #13469

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

clemsos
Copy link
Member

@clemsos clemsos commented Mar 14, 2024

Description

This updates default versions to Unlock 13 and PublicLock 14 when deploying protocol from hardhat plugin (currently used in integration tests)

Issues

Fixes #
Refs #

Checklist:

  • 1 PR, 1 purpose: my Pull Request applies to a single purpose
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have updated the docs to reflect my changes if applicable
  • I have added tests (and stories for frontend components) that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • If my code involves visual changes, I am adding applicable screenshots to this thread

Release Note Draft Snippet

@clemsos clemsos requested a review from julien51 March 14, 2024 15:40
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla-signed label Mar 14, 2024
@clemsos clemsos changed the title feat(hardhat-plugin): bump contracts versions feat(hardhat-plugin, contracts): bump contracts versions Mar 14, 2024
@clemsos clemsos changed the title feat(hardhat-plugin, contracts): bump contracts versions feat(hardhat-plugin,contracts): bump contracts versions Mar 14, 2024
@clemsos
Copy link
Member Author

clemsos commented Mar 14, 2024

this issue should actually be fixed by #9357

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
export const UNLOCK_LATEST_VERSION = 11
export const PUBLIC_LOCK_LATEST_VERSION = 13
export const UNLOCK_LATEST_VERSION = 13
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if our "contracts" package should just have some latest fields?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes it will be the easiest and safest way. We need an alias in our exports, there is an existing opened issue on these I referenced here

@clemsos
Copy link
Member Author

clemsos commented Mar 20, 2024

closing at is has been replaced by #13484

@clemsos clemsos closed this Mar 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants