-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
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
Prepare 0.4.23 release. #3949
Prepare 0.4.23 release. #3949
Conversation
As you mentioned the issue with two constructors, should that be considered a bug? |
9e29758
to
5c9bc5c
Compare
docs/bugs.json
Outdated
"name": "OneOfTwoConstructorsSkipped", | ||
"summary": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored.", | ||
"description": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored. There will be a compiler warning about the old-style constructor, so contracts only using new-style constructors are fine.", | ||
"fixed": "0.4.24", |
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.
Should have an introduced line with 0.4.23.
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.
fixed.
b48991f
to
4a420d7
Compare
docs/bugs_by_version.json
Outdated
}, | ||
"0.4.5": { | ||
"bugs": [ | ||
"OneOfTwoConstructorsSkipped", |
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 seems to be broken.
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.
hm, something is wrong with the script...
docs/bugs.json
Outdated
"summary": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored.", | ||
"description": "If a contract has both a new-style constructor (using the constructor keyword) and an old-style constructor (a function with the same name as the contract) at the same time, one of them will be ignored. There will be a compiler warning about the old-style constructor, so contracts only using new-style constructors are fine.", | ||
"introduced": "0.4.23", | ||
"fixed": "0.4.24", |
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.
Oh also these two are broken: 0.4.22 and 0.4.23 :)
4a420d7
to
420d8cf
Compare
The tests fail for me, so let's see.... |
Ok, it seems we are fine and it is just a local problem. |
Argh, it seems it failed for the same reason: |
420d8cf
to
a79c9a1
Compare
Ok, now it should be working... |
No description provided.