-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Prague support #6223
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
Prague support #6223
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 2f292bd The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
3cf0685 to
31a9db6
Compare
31a9db6 to
3e40b71
Compare
fvictorio
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think x ?? y is always more readable than x !== undefined ? x : y, although I know that the semantics are different. But I'm pretty sure in the cases where the latter pattern is used in this PR, turning it into "undefined or null" (the ?? semantics) would be fine.
| version: SignTypedDataVersion.V4, | ||
| data: typedMessage, | ||
| }); | ||
| return signTyped(typedMessage, privateKey, false); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we sure we want a false here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe we do. Using extraEntropy will make the signature different every time, which not only messes up our tests but could also affect user tests and end up being a breaking change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's merge with false. I created a follow up.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const signedTransaction = transaction.sign(privateKey); | ||
| const signedTransaction = transaction.signBy(privateKey, false); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same with the false here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This can be addressed later though
TODO:
packages/hardhat-core/src/internal/hardhat-network/provider/utils/convertToEdr.ts.formatTransactionResponseinpackages/hardhat-ethers/src/internal/ethers-utils.tsto include theauthorizationList. [Not-a-blocker]@ledgerhqdependencies inhardhat-ledgeronce signing type 4 transactions is supported by ledger. [Not-a-blocker]Follow-up PR for setting prague as the default hardfork (to be merged once prague is activated in mainnet): #6237