Skip to content

Conversation

@schaable
Copy link
Member

@schaable schaable commented Feb 4, 2025

TODO:

  • Bump EDR.
  • Fix TODOs in packages/hardhat-core/src/internal/hardhat-network/provider/utils/convertToEdr.ts.
  • Bump Ethers once Support EIP 7702 ethers-io/ethers.js#4916 is released and update formatTransactionResponse in packages/hardhat-ethers/src/internal/ethers-utils.ts to include the authorizationList. [Not-a-blocker]
  • Bump all @ledgerhq dependencies in hardhat-ledger once 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

@schaable schaable added the v-next A Hardhat v3 development task label Feb 4, 2025
@schaable schaable self-assigned this Feb 4, 2025
@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Feb 4, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 2f292bd

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Name Type
@nomicfoundation/hardhat-ledger Minor
hardhat Minor

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

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Feb 4, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
hardhat ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Mar 28, 2025 3:19pm

@schaable schaable changed the title [WIP - DO NOT MERGE] Prague support Prague support Feb 10, 2025
@alcuadrado alcuadrado removed the v-next A Hardhat v3 development task label Feb 12, 2025
@schaable schaable marked this pull request as ready for review March 26, 2025 15:01
Copy link
Member

@fvictorio fvictorio left a 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);
Copy link
Member

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?

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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);
Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Member

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

@schaable schaable merged commit aa09462 into main Mar 28, 2025
133 checks passed
@schaable schaable deleted the prague-support branch March 28, 2025 15:42
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Backlog to Done in Hardhat Mar 28, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 27, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants