feat: reenable paymaster for argent #917
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
hooks/paymaster.tsx (3)
67-67: Clarify the comment about conditional enablingThe comment suggests conditional enabling/disabling based on wallet and deployment info, but the code now always enables the paymaster. Consider either:
- Removing the comment since it doesn't reflect the current implementation, or
- Implementing the suggested conditional logic if there are specific cases where the paymaster should be disabled.
Line range hint
174-209: Enhance error handling for typed data fetchWhile the paymaster enabling logic is correct, consider improving the error handling:
- The error is only logged to console, making it difficult for users to understand failures
- The error state isn't tracked, so the UI can't show appropriate feedback
Consider this enhancement:
.catch((error) => { + setTypedData(null); + setTypedDataError({ + message: error.message, + short: "Failed to prepare transaction" + }); console.error("Error when fetching deployment typed data:", error); });
Line range hint
214-246: Consider splitting handleRegister into smaller functionsThe function handles multiple responsibilities: signing data, making API calls, and error handling. Consider breaking it down for better maintainability:
const executeWithPaymaster = async (signature: Signature) => { const body = buildPaymasterRequestBody(signature); try { const response = await fetch(`${gaslessOptions.baseUrl}/gasless/v1/execute`, { method: "POST", headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, body: JSON.stringify(body) }); const data = await response.json(); return then(data.transactionHash); } catch (error) { setPaymasterError({ message: error.message, short: "Paymaster execution failed" }); throw error; } }; const handleRegister = useCallback(async () => { if (!account) return; try { if (typedData && paymasterEnabled) { const signature = await signTypedDataAsync(typedData); await executeWithPaymaster(signature); } else { const res = await execute(); await then(res.transaction_hash); } } catch (error) { console.error("Transaction failed:", error); } }, [/* ... dependencies ... */]);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
hooks/paymaster.tsx(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
hooks/paymaster.tsx (2)
Line range hint 262-262: LGTM: Loading state correctly handles paymaster condition
The loading state correctly accounts for the paymaster being enabled, ensuring accurate UI feedback.
67-67: Verify impact of removing wallet-specific checks
Since we're removing the wallet-specific checks and enabling paymaster for all wallets, let's verify there are no assumptions about wallet types in dependent code.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the codebase, I can now generate the final response:
No impact from enabling paymaster for all wallets
The changes to enable paymaster for all wallets are safe because:
- The paymaster functionality is self-contained within the
usePaymasterhook - No other code in the codebase makes assumptions about wallet-specific paymaster behavior
- The previous Argent-specific check was only used for enabling/disabling the feature, not for any wallet-specific logic
- The paymaster implementation handles all wallets uniformly through standardized interfaces
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for code that might assume wallet-specific paymaster behavior
rg -l "argentX|argentMobile.*paymaster" --type typescript
# Search for potential wallet type checks in transaction handling
ast-grep --pattern 'if ($COND.includes("argent")) { $$$ }'
Length of output: 155
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for code that might assume wallet-specific paymaster behavior
rg -l "argentX|argentMobile.*paymaster"
# Search for wallet-specific conditions related to paymaster
rg -A 2 "argent.*paymaster|paymaster.*argent"
# Search for any wallet type checks in transaction handling
rg -A 2 "if.*argent.*\{|wallet.*argent"
Length of output: 691
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of these files to understand the paymaster usage
cat hooks/paymaster.tsx
cat utils/connectorWrapper.ts
# Also check for any paymaster configuration or usage patterns
rg -A 3 "paymaster"
Length of output: 34706
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor