Update to Cadence v1.0.0-M8

[turbolent]

Description

Automatically update to:

• onflow/flow-go-sdk v1.0.0-M5
• onflow/cadence v1.0.0-M8

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 54.72%. Comparing base (607d0fe) to head (63c929a).
Report is 3 commits behind head on feature/stable-cadence.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##           feature/stable-cadence    #5442      +/-   ##
==========================================================
- Coverage                   56.31%   54.72%   -1.60%     
==========================================================
  Files                        1030      921     -109     
  Lines                      100049    87569   -12480     
==========================================================
- Hits                        56347    47923    -8424     
+ Misses                      39439    35921    -3518     
+ Partials                     4263     3725     -538     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	54.72% <100.00%> (-1.60%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[turbolent]

@SupunS To unblock updating downstream dependencies, I'm going to merge this for now, as the state migration is only used in flow-go itself, and not in any of the downstream dependencies.

Could you please have a look at and fix up the invocation of NewCadenceV042ToV1ContractUpdateValidator in a follow up PR? see https://github.com/onflow/flow-go/pull/5442/files#diff-21e3bd4ff5c152211427ad3ebc982745163a76a94c80071d0f8705374663699bR245-R252, i.e. the changes of 63c929a

• I didn't know why the location wasn't passed before. I guess it didn't matter / wasn't used yet? Can you please check if passing location there is correct?
• I provided the argument for the new provider AccountContractNamesProvider parameter by using the environment that was already used for AccountContractAdditionHandler. Could you please check this is correct or fix it if not?
• I didn't know where to get the argument for the new newElaborations map[common.Location]*sema.Elaboration parameter from, and left a TODO

[SupunS]

Cross-posting the offline sync for any future reference:

I had fixed both 1 and 2 (location and elaborations passing) in a follow-up PR: #5405. Location should've been passed, but yeah, it didn't needed previously.

I provided the argument for the new provider AccountContractNamesProvider parameter by using the environment that was already used for AccountContractAdditionHandler. Could you please check this is correct or fix it if not?

Looks good! Thanks for updating.