Upgrade to latest wagmi version #350
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| import { SDK } from '../client' | ||
| import { AuctionBidFragment } from '../sdk.generated' | ||
|
|
||
| export const getBids = async (chainId: CHAIN_ID, collection: string, tokenId: string) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps some error handling?
| @@ -59,7 +45,7 @@ export function LayoutWrapper({ children }: { children: ReactNode }) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| //@ts-ignore | |||
| if (isBlocked(signer?._address)) | |||
| if (isBlocked(address)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need that TS ignore?
Looks like the cause of the problem before was that _address wasn't found on type signer.
| @@ -43,7 +42,7 @@ export const useAuctionEvents = ({ | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| await mutate([SWR_KEYS.AUCTION_BIDS, chainId, auction, tokenId], () => | |||
| getBids(chainId, auction as string, tokenId) | |||
| getBids(chainId, collection, tokenId!.toString()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious why you have to use the '!' assertions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
switched to a cast instead
| @@ -125,7 +119,7 @@ export const AllocationForm: React.FC<AllocationFormProps> = ({ title }) => { | |||
| setActiveSection(activeSection + 1) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if (!signerAddress) return null | |||
| if (!address) return null | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the rare case that address is null, do we really want the component to return null?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be fixed in a separate pr or when we rework the create dao flow. keeping as is for now to minimize changes in this upgrade
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| if (isLoading || thresholdIsLoading) return null | ||
|
|
||
| const tokensNeeded = proposalThreshold && proposalThreshold.toNumber() + 1 | ||
| const tokensNeeded = | ||
| proposalThreshold !== undefined ? Number(proposalThreshold) + 1 : undefined |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious, is this proposalThreshold !== undefined stuff because of BigInt (ex. 0n)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes 0 is a valid proposal threshold so the proposalThreshold && check didn't work when moving from BigNunber to BigInt
| const submitCallback = React.useCallback( | ||
| (values: { transactionCustomABI: string }) => { | ||
| try { | ||
| if (!!signer && !!customTransaction.address && !!values.transactionCustomABI) { | ||
| if (!!customTransaction.address && !!values.transactionCustomABI) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why the double bang truthy tests here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removing this not sure why they are written like this either
| imageUri, | ||
| ] | ||
| ) || '', | ||
| calldata: encodeFunctionData({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, so much cleaner.
| @@ -68,20 +72,20 @@ const VoteModal: React.FC<{ | |||
| const config = await prepareWriteContract({ | |||
| ...governorContractParams, | |||
| functionName: 'castVoteWithReason', | |||
| args: [proposalId as BytesType, BigNumber.from(values.choice), values.reason], | |||
| args: [proposalId as BytesType, BigInt(values.choice!), values.reason], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would opt for the type assertion over the bang assertion unless necessary.
Description
Code review
Type of change
Checklist