-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
Upgrade dependency: web3@1.0.0-beta.48 #1793
Conversation
gnidan
commented
Mar 5, 2019
- truffle: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-artifactor: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-contract: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-core: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-debugger: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-decode-utils: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-decoder: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-deployer: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-hdwallet-provider: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-migrate: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-provider: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
- truffle-require: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
* truffle: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-artifactor: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-contract: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-core: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-debugger: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-decode-utils: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-decoder: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-deployer: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-hdwallet-provider: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-migrate: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-provider: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-require: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
* truffle-contract: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
* truffle-contract: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-debugger: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
* truffle-contract: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-external-compile: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48 * truffle-reporters: 1.0.0-beta.37 → 1.0.0-beta.48
is this slated for the next release? having an issue with |
Not as a blocker for release, but it would be nice to have. I am not sure if the team has bandwidth to get this ready by next week, since there's unknown complexity/risk. I'll say though... if anyone can get an upgrade PR to pass Travis checks, I would consider that a top priority to review/QA. I just fear the unknowns lurking behind the red ❌ there. Anyway, @nivida did some initial investigation into the test failures here. I will find his results later today and paste here. |
So nivida identified this line, saying:
|
Apparently there's an issue with beta.48 and |
Closing in favor of newer #1852 |