Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 23, 2023. It is now read-only.

solidity_names() recognizes interface #737

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LefterisJP
Copy link
Contributor

This is a hack. Solidity 0.4.11 introduces the interface keyword and
breaks the solidity_names() function. This simply tweaks the function
so that it also treats interfaces like contracts and does not break.

I don't believe pyethereum should attempt to parse solidity files on its
own as compatibility issues like this are almost certain to arise also in the
future. For more long-term a different solution should be found where
pyethereum queries solidity itself and does not parse anything on its own.

LefterisJP added a commit to LefterisJP/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2017
LefterisJP added a commit to LefterisJP/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2017
Based directly on top of pyethereum v1.6.1

This is a hack. Solidity 0.4.11 introduces the interface keyword and
breaks the solidity_names() function. This simply tweaks the function
so that it also treats interfaces like contracts and does not break.

I don't believe pyethereum should attempt to parse solidity files on its
own as compatibility issues like this are almost certain to arise also in the
future. For more long-term a different solution should be found where
pyethereum queries solidity itself and does not parse anything on its own.
@LefterisJP LefterisJP force-pushed the take_solidity_interface_into_account branch from 82e7896 to 246bc3d Compare June 1, 2017 12:42
LefterisJP added a commit to LefterisJP/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2017
LefterisJP added a commit to LefterisJP/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2017
LefterisJP added a commit to LefterisJP/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2017
LefterisJP added a commit to raiden-network/raiden that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2017
@joeykrug
Copy link
Contributor

Resolve conflicts then will merge

@LefterisJP
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joeykrug I will do that, but since we have this branch pinned in raiden and I don't want to introduce extra problems with our code by using a newer pyethereum version I will probably do it in a new PR.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants