Upgrade to 0.14.0 alpha2

[maurolacy]

Closes #229 .

A couple of tests in multi-test are failing, but publishing anyway as they are interesting cases to look at (wrong sender can now send bank messages in the multi-test context).

Update: This makes sense, because BankMsg doesn't have a from_address anymore. Will just modify / remove these tests.

Still needs some styling, and closely following MIGRATING.md guidelines, but this is compiling, passes linting AFAIK, and passes almost all tests.

[ethanfrey]

I did some cleanup to see if this passes CI now.

I wonder if we should rename HandleMsg to ExecuteMsg across the board as well? This will change all the schema file output as well.

[ethanfrey]

Looking good. If there are some particular tests you want me to look at closer, just add a comment there.

I am curious about renaming HandleMsg -> ExecuteMsg and anything else we need to change like that for consistency

[ethanfrey]

Would it make sense to extend Response::default()?

Or do something like:

let mut res = Response::default();
res.add_attribute("action", "burn_from");
res.add_attribute("from", owner);
res.add_attribute("by", deps.api.human_address(&spender_raw));
res.add_attribute("amount", amount);
Ok(res)

We could do this consistently if you like (at least on a few contracts as demo and make an issue to finish it).

NB: I would prefer the shorter (and more Ethereum like) res.emit("from", owner) but Simon didn't like that as it wasn't clear. Curious as to your opinion.

[maurolacy]

I prefer it as it is now, for clarity.

A default() and overwriting is discouraged for style, by the way. See https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/#field_reassign_with_default

A default can still be useful, though now that addresses don't have defaults, a "full default" is not possible anymore.

[maurolacy]

I did some cleanup to see if this passes CI now.

I wonder if we should rename HandleMsg to ExecuteMsg across the board as well? This will change all the schema file output as well.

I think the sensible thing would be to rename it. Particularly when writing new contracts, it would be confusing to have to write a HandleMsg for execute.

Maybe we can leave this change for a future version, though, as not to introduce so many changes at once.

[ethanfrey]

I did some cleanup to see if this passes CI now.
I wonder if we should rename HandleMsg to ExecuteMsg across the board as well? This will change all the schema file output as well.

I think the sensible thing would be to rename it. Particularly when writing new contracts, it would be confusing to have to write a HandleMsg for execute.

Maybe we can leave this change for a future version, though, as not to introduce so many changes at once.

We can do that in another PR, but let's do this by the next v0.6.0 cosmwasm-plus release, so that is a stable point. See #236

[maurolacy]

Only missing piece AFAIK, was migrating to the new entry point system. If the old system still works (I think so), we can leave that for the next iteration.

[ethanfrey]

Yeah, they both work and there is a new issue for that one. It's a bit down the backlog #230 But if you want to, you can pull that next (it shouldn't be a big deal)

[maurolacy]

Just for reference / documentation, addressed pending changes in #249 and #250.