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

Solidity 0.7 support #111

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Solidity 0.7 support #111

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

vporton
Copy link

@vporton vporton commented Dec 10, 2020

@vporton
Copy link
Author

vporton commented Dec 10, 2020

Upgraded to Solidity 0.7.5.

Weird, I remember it didn't work with versions above 0.7.1 previously, but now it seems to work...

@cag
Copy link
Contributor

cag commented Dec 17, 2020

This may be useful if somebody wants to create a successor to the conditional tokens, but afaik, unless there's a serious flaw with the code using 0.5.x as is, I don't see a redeployment of the contracts happening, so this will probably not get a release immediately.

Maybe there should be a development branch though? I can see this merged into such a branch, along with changes related to some of the issues listed for this repo. Still, there isn't enough improvement to be made, imo, to justify redeploying a new set of contracts and convincing people to migrate... yet.

@vporton
Copy link
Author

vporton commented Dec 17, 2020

This may be useful if somebody wants to create a successor to the conditional tokens, but afaik, unless there's a serious flaw with the code using 0.5.x as is, I don't see a redeployment of the contracts happening, so this will probably not get a release immediately.

By the way, while upgrading to 0.7 I fixed several bug that were present in the 0.5.x code! Need to backport them.

Maybe there should be a development branch though? I can see this merged into such a branch, along with changes related to some of the issues listed for this repo. Still, there isn't enough improvement to be made, imo, to justify redeploying a new set of contracts and convincing people to migrate... yet.

Definitely, should be a development branch.

@cag
Copy link
Contributor

cag commented Dec 17, 2020

Oh, so this isn't a straight port? I think in the future, it would be nice to get that in two PRs, but since you're here, mind elaborating on what was fixed?

@vporton
Copy link
Author

vporton commented Dec 17, 2020

Oh, so this isn't a straight port? I think in the future, it would be nice to get that in two PRs, but since you're here, mind elaborating on what was fixed?

I don't remember all the details, but some function had return values that were never assigned.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants