build: bump motsu v0.4.0

[qalisander]

PR Checklist

• Docs
• Version
• Changelog

[bidzyyys]

You have a warning to solve:

Check warning on line 265 in crates/motsu/src/lib.rs

unused variable: `pong`

[bidzyyys]

Left some comments.

[0xNeshi]

I'm not in favor of using contracts from our unit tests in this README, as I find those contracts too unclear to be used to explain how Motsu works. A contract used for docs should be simple, yet meaningful, and Proxy is not really meaningful.
A good example of simple and meaningful tests would be the ping_pong_tests. But I'd advise against using even these tests as part of our docs, as they're not versatile enough (e.g. they don't use msg::value).

Ideally, we would define one or two contracts separate from unit tests, place those at the top of README(s), and then reuse these contracts for all subsequent code examples. This would both make it easier for readers to follow and understand our explanations, while making it unnecessary to specify imports in each example. I think neither ERC20 nor Proxy nor Ping/Pong are good candidates for this, and new contracts are necessary.
Let me know if you'd like me to suggest contracts for the docs, and I can take some time to think of good examples.

EDIT: if we updated Ping/Pong contracts to accept ether and pass it to each other, it would make them more valid examples for use in docs, as it would make sense to use .sender_and_value(...).

Alternatively, if the docs aren't high priority for this PR, we can keep using current contracts in READMEs, but create a separate issue to update our docs for some future release.

Wdyt @bidzyyys @qalisander ?

[bidzyyys]

I'm not in favor of using contracts from our unit tests in this README, as I find those contracts too unclear to be used to explain how Motsu works. A contract used for docs should be simple, yet meaningful, and Proxy is not really meaningful. A good example of simple and meaningful tests would be the ping_pong_tests. But I'd advise against using even these tests as part of our docs, as they're not versatile enough (e.g. they don't use msg::value).

Ideally, we would define one or two contracts separate from unit tests, place those at the top of README(s), and then reuse these contracts for all subsequent code examples. This would both make it easier for readers to follow and understand our explanations, while making it unnecessary to specify imports in each example. I think neither ERC20 nor Proxy nor Ping/Pong are good candidates for this, and new contracts are necessary. Let me know if you'd like me to suggest contracts for the docs, and I can take some time to think of good examples.

Alternatively, if the docs aren't high priority for this PR, we can keep using current contracts in READMEs, but create a separate issue to update our docs for some future release.

Wdyt @bidzyyys @qalisander ?

I believe we can take Counter example, as I believe it is auto generated by default from cargo stylus new command.

[0xNeshi]

I believe we can take Counter example, as I believe it is auto generated by default from cargo stylus new command

Counter has the same problem as Ping/Pong - it doesn't use msg::value, though Ping/Pong could be updated to do so, and then we could reuse this in docs. I'll update my original comment with a suggestion

[0xNeshi]

Nice work!

[0xNeshi]

The fund-related change request left unresolved #39 (comment)

[qalisander]

Update changelog date

[bidzyyys]

LGTM!