Release - 1.2.5

[nivida]

Description

We will first release version 1.2.5 as 1.2.5-rc.0 and will follow the release guidelines as described here.

Added

• eth_requestAccounts as requestAccounts added to web3-eth package (eth_requestAccounts added to web3-eth package #3219)
• sha3Raw and soliditySha3Raw added to web3-utils package (Implements sha3Raw and soliditySha3Raw #3226)
• eth_getProof as getProof added to web3-eth package (eth_getProof added to web3-eth package #3220)
• BN and BigNumber objects are now supported by the abi.encodeParameter(s) method (big-number (BN & BigNumber) mapping added to abi.encodeParameters  #3238)
• getPendingTransactions added to web3-eth package (Extends the web3-eth module with the method getPendingTransactions #3239)
• Revert instruction handling added which can get activated with the handleRevert module property (Adds revert instruction handling #3248)
• The receipt does now exist as property on the error object for transaction related errors (Receipt added to transaction errors #3259)
• internalType added to AbiInput TS interface in web3-utils (AbiInput type updated in web3-utils #3279)
• Agent option added to the HttpProvider options (Added support for custom http agent #2980)

Changed

• eth-lib dependency updated (0.2.7 => ^0.2.8) (eth-lib dependency updated #3242)

Fixed

• Fix crash when decoding events with identical signatures, differently indexed args (A contract call which triggers multiple events of the same name throws error #3272)
• Fix user supplied callback not fired in eth.accounts.signTransaction (Bad return in web3.eth.accounts.signTransaction #3283)
• Fix minified bundle (Loading web3.min.js in browser fails with "require is not defined" #3256)
• defaultBlock property handling fixed (fixes defaultBlock property handling #3247)
• clearSubscriptions does no longer throw an error if no running subscriptions do exist (clearSubscriptions shouldn't throw an error if no subscriptions do exist #3246)
• callback type definition for Accounts.signTransaction fixed (Callback type for Accounts.signTransaction fixed #3280)
• Fix export bloom functions on the index.js
• Prefer receipt status to code availability on contract deployment (Prefer receipt status to code availability on contract deployment  #3298)

Compare View

v1.2.4 -> v1.2.5

Type of change

• Release

Checklist:

• I have selected the correct base branch.
• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• My changes generate no new warnings.
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.
• I ran npm run test with success and extended the tests if necessary.
• I ran npm run build and tested the resulting file from dist folder in a browser.
• I have tested my code on the live network.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 85.36% when pulling e919f81 on release/1.2.5 into 513116f on 1.x.

[holgerd77]

I think it would eventually make sense to complement the common release guidelines with a simple release TODO list template which can then be copied over and worked down along a new release - seems like many of these steps are repeatable - so a list like:

• Update version attribute in package.json
• Update version attribute in packages/web3/package.json
• Update minified version of the library at dist/web3.min.js
• Update package-lock.json file
• Check README.md for necessary changes
• ...

We could actually use something like this for EthereumJS as well, let's really see if we can take parts / most of the rules you worked out here over once you guys collected some more experience with it.

BTW: what is your policy on documentation updates (eventually also something for the list above)? Do you update the docs also on release or along with PRs (and so to have them for some time in parts on a non-release matching state)? We recently had some debate on this on the EthereumJS side.

[nivida]

@holgerd77 Great idea! I do have such a list locally on my PC. I will update the release guidelines with such a list after the RC release got published.

BTW: what is your policy on documentation updates (eventually also something for the list above)? Do you update the docs also on release or along with PRs (and so to have them for some time in parts on a non-release matching state)? We recently had some debate on this on the EthereumJS side.

Until now did I update the documentation after a stable release got published (see versions in our readthedocs documentation). I thought to keep the documentation as it is until the production version got released but I will kick off a discussion about with @cgewecke. Thanks!

Btw.: Lerna does currently have a problem to detect the changes correctly.

[holgerd77]

👍

Docs: 1) Ah no, I think the variant you do as common practice (keep until release) makes most sense, we actually also realized that our up till recently executed practice of update docs along with PRs confuses people. 😋 2) So doc update practice is likely also a case for the TODO list (eventually to split this up into a "Before merge" and "After merge" list or similar, whatever makes sense to structure the bigger 2-3 overlaying steps).

[nivida]

@michaelsbradleyjr @gnidan @alcuadrado @iurimatias @spalladino @cgewecke @holgerd77 @sohkai @fabioberger @caleteeter @joshstevens19

I've published version 1.2.5-rc.0. Feel free to give any feedback about this version here in this PR. We will release the production version of 1.2.5 after a week but only if no changes are requested from any contributor or consumer of the web3.js library.

[cgewecke]

@nivida Just checked npm and it looks like the tagging of the rc release should be adjusted. The new rc is set to latest. Running npm view web3 shows:

dist-tags:
latest: 1.2.5-rc.0   next: 2.0.0-alpha.1  

I think this can be addressed using npm's dist-tags command. Worth double-checking but maybe this?

npm dist-tag add web3@1.2.5-rc.0 rc
npm dist-tag add web3@1.2.4 latest

It looks like all the packages (e.g. web-utils) would need to be adjusted this way...

[nivida]

@cgewecke Thanks Chris for commenting here. As already discussed over Gitter with you did I have a short chat with Holger about it and the outcome was to keep the rc version on the latest track for now because it’s aligned with semver which means dynamically defined versions as for example ^1.2.4 do get handled correctly and the rc version doesn't get installed. We will move the rc version on a separate track with a 1.2.5-rc.1 release if such a release is required or at least on the next coming rc version of the 1.2.6 release.

[holgerd77]

@cgewecke I have a bit a mixed feeling here but in the end we have little "damage" here respectively we just don't get the full benefits of the new release process in this first round. Worst direct outcome is that some direct users will have a release candidate installed, which would have been the directly released version if we would have kept going on with the old release process.

For the next release we can see that we get the tagging right as well. @nivida maybe you can already post for discussion here the anticipated correct CLI publication commands which would have gotten the tagging right? Then we are better prepared on next round.

[cgewecke]

@nivida @holgerd77 Ok sounds good to me! 👍

[nivida]

@holgerd77 Sounds good! I will extend the scripts defined in the root package.json with a release:rc script which does define the tags correctly for each package and we can discuss it in the related PR. 👌

[alcuadrado]

I think there was a misinterpretation of how semver handles prerelease versions. At least npm's implementation doesn't behave as described by @nivida. This section explains it it: https://www.npmjs.com/package/semver#prerelease-tags

This broke Buidler, as it validates its plugins' dependencies. Some plugins have a dependency on web3@^1.2.0, and this isn't satisfied by 1.2.5-rc.0, as you can see here:

pato@pmbp:asd% node
> const semver = require("semver")
undefined
> semver.satisfies("1.2.5-rc.0", "^1.2.0")
false

This may be breaking other systems that inspect dependencies versions, like web bundlers.

[nivida]

@alcuadrado

which means dynamically defined versions as for example ^1.2.4 do get handled correctly and the rc version doesn't get installed.

As described above and quoted here does the rc version no get installed if the version range is specified as ^1.2.0 and I think this is the correct behavior and does respect semver

[alcuadrado]

Just to keep everyone else informed, we discussed this more with @nivida through discord. The problem is when someone installs web3 directly, and another package that depends on it. For example npm i -D @nomiclabs/buidler @nomiclabs/buidler-web3 web3 is very common.

The problem is that npm i web3 means npm i web3@latest, which in turn means npm i web3@1.2.5-rc.0. Meanwhile, any package depending on web3 will probably have a dependency on web3@^1.2.x with x < 5, as 1.2.5 hasn't been published yet. When npm has to resolve that, it will choose the highest version that satisfies that requirement, and 1.2.5-rc.0 doesn't.

What are the implications of this? For systems that validate their dependencies, like Buidler, it will lead to a failure. For bundlers, it will probably lead to web3 being duplicated, as it's easy to have two versions installed.

[michaelsbradleyjr]

@alcuadrado has a very good point.

While it's only a convention, it seems to me that the implicit @latest NPM dist-tag means, effectively, "latest stable release". By implicit I mean what @alcuadrado wrote above:

The problem is that npm i web3 means npm i web3@latest...

For that reason, I think it's best that only non-prerelease versions (stable versions) are dist-tagged as latest.

Likewise, prereleases should use another dist-tagging convention, e.g. rc, or next, or beta, etc. Note that dist-tags are orthogonal to semver prerelease identifiers, though they can be made to align reasonably well. Also note that a package version can have multiple dist-tags. And also note that there are some restrictions on dist-tags, i.e. they can't be valid semver.

Hypothetical convention for package dist-tags:

next — latest release candidate or latest stable release, regardless of major version
next-v1 — latest release candidate or latest stable release for major version 1

(the next two are superfluous if a project strictly adheres to semver; mega-bonus 🎁 if the project strictly adheres to Conventional Commits)

next-v1.2 — latest release candidate or latest stable release for minor version 1.2
next-v1.2.3 — latest release candidate or latest stable release for patch version 1.2.3

The reason for the "...or latest stable release" clauses above is owing to a concern about version drift in the dist-tags.

Imagine that next tags are not updated to point to the latest stable version and that some downstream project depends on web3, web3-foo, and web3-bar. The project maintainer wants to check for compatibility with the upcoming (@next) versions and in package.json specs web3@next, web3-foo@next, web3-bar@next. Seems reasonable, but suppose that web3 and web3-foo are in prerelease while web3-bar is still stable 🤔 💣 ...web3-bar@next would resolve to a prerelease predating its current stable version. 💥

By updating next tags to always point to either the most recent stable version (after graduating from prerelease) or the most recent prerelease since the last stable release, the problem described above is avoided.

---

This subject recently came up re: planning for a nightly-release GitHub Actions workflow for the Embark Framework. We've settled on using a -nightly.[N] semver prerelease identifier (and will no longer use other prerelease identifiers such as -alpha.[N], -beta.[N], etc.) and a nightly dist-tag. Our stable release script updates each stably-released package's nightly dist-tag to point to its latest stable release, for the reasons described above.

When a major version is pending, we'll use a series of alpha-v[M], beta-v[M], rc-v[M] dist-tags (pointing to successive [M].0.0-nightly.[N] versions (or latest stable version; see above)) to step through a series of alpha/beta/rc candidates prior to the major-level stable release.

We're also now using a --force-publish major-version strategy (pertains to lerna publish|version) such that, upon a major-level stable release, all packages are bumped to a new major version even if they weren't in prerelease. The reason for that, translated to web3, is that downstream projects can then confidently spec "web3[-*]: "^[M].0.0" in their package.json files ([M] could be 7, or whatever), knowing that all stable versions of web3[-*] packages will be at the same major version. Note that this can be relevant for the upstream project even when it uses Lerna's "fixed" versioning mode (despite what the README suggests), though it may only become an issue when the --conventional-commits option is used with lerna publish|version (which is the case for Embark).

[cgewecke]

As part of the RC process, am doing some test installations in other projects and running their tests to see if everything.

• installs properly
• builds
• tests pass

This list will be actively edited:

Project	Desc	Status
oz-test-helpers	Test utils. Subset of their suite is web3 contracts	✅
oceanprotocol/squid-js	TS API ~95 tests + tsc + webpack build	✅
gnosis/dex-react	TS React app ~200 tests + webpack build + jest	✅

(Some of these require quite a bit of manual dependency pruning to remove non-rc versions of Web3.)

[cgewecke]

Would just like some clarity on the build status before approving - other than that - in testing everything has seemed correct to me.

[nivida]

Would just like some clarity on the build status before approving - other than that - in testing everything has seemed correct to me.

Great! Thanks for your analysis! I will check that as well:)
If anything is fine can we release the 1.2.5 production version on Monday 🎊

[cgewecke]

@nivida I'm very sorry - I misunderstood whether that version of the build should be included in the git release here. I do see it in node_modules/web3/dist when I install via npm - it looks fine.

[cgewecke]

Everything looks good to me!