Upgrade to near-sdk-rs 4.1 and test functionality

[ailisp]

Problem Currently DevHub contract is using near-sdk-rs 3.x. Several API enhancements have been introduced in 4.0 and security updates will also only update for 4.x so we should update to use near-sdk-rs 4.1.

User Story

As a developer, I want to use near-sdk-rs 4.x APIs in develop DevHub contract. Particularly I would like to use require! macro and new cross contract API.

Acceptance Criteria

• Contract build with dependency near-sdk-rs 4.x in Cargo.toml
• All existing functionalities still work. Can be test by deploying a copy of the contract and try functionalities in the DevHub widgets to hit all Near.call and Near.view.
• Replace several if ... panic to require!
• Replace cross contract call into social-db contract with 4.x API, ensure the notification on near social still works

[gautamprikshit1]

I would like to work on this one

[frol]

I had to revert #26 (see https://github.com/near/neardevhub-contract/commit/8fc1fdd54237c646d16b25cbf5bbd7d84a7a4a49) due to https://github.com/near/neardevhub-contract/pull/26#issuecomment-1581018921.

[ori-near]

Hi @frol – Can you please provide an update on this ticket? What's the next step here? Do we need to reassign or change the status?

[frol]

It seems that @gautamprikshit1 did not have time to proceed with this issue, so I unassigned him, and if someone is ready to jump on it, learn more in https://github.com/near/neardevhub-contract/pull/26#issuecomment-1581018921

[jaswinder6991]

Hi @frol, what is pending in this issue atm? The list of tasks mentioned here - https://github.com/near/neardevhub-contract/pull/26#issuecomment-1581018921 and the migrations you have mentioned? (which might be just the Sponsorship token according to you guess?)

[frol]

@jaswinder6991 well, by this time it will be easier to start the PR from scratch (just manually port the changes) as rebasing will probably just make things unnecessarily complicated.

[frol]

With #46 merged, this issue is unblocked, though I think that instead of trying to rebase #26, it would be easier to re-apply the changes manually. cc @jaswinder6991

[PiVortex]

I'm going to take a look at this.

[PiVortex]

Please help with this See src/respost.rs The test is failing as the two are not equal in the assert_eq! Which way should it be structured? Should I reformat to be the same as the expected?

[frol]

@PiVortex The expected value is correct, the "post" value has to be a JSON-encoded string, not a JSON object.

[frol]

Resolved in #63.