feat: add hooks and provider for pre-deposit functionality#1073
feat: add hooks and provider for pre-deposit functionality#1073gbonumore wants to merge 4 commits intostatus-im:mainfrom
Conversation
|
|
@gbonumore is attempting to deploy a commit to the Status Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
# Conflicts: # apps/hub/src/app/_constants/chain.ts # apps/hub/src/app/_hooks/useApprovePreDepositToken.ts # apps/hub/src/app/_hooks/usePreDepositVault.ts # apps/hub/src/app/_hooks/useWrapETH.ts
|
#1034 (comment) |
|
Preview deployments are ready!
Deployed via GitHub Actions |
jkbktl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great work 👏
I left couple of comments/flags to keep them in mind.
I appreciate change of the pre-deposit flow to be aligned with other flows, not sure if it's worth it since it's gonna end soon.
Could you please add to description what's done and what's missing? (I can see missing provide liquidity & lend mint flows, ens resolver...)
| "notes": "vault::provide_liquidity" | ||
| }, | ||
| "provide_liquidity_description": { | ||
| "translation": "Short description of the option. Pros and cons. Learn more.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just flagging this, so it doesn't get into production.
| "notes": "vault::lend_mint" | ||
| }, | ||
| "lend_mint_description": { | ||
| "translation": "Short description of the option. Pros and cons. Learn more.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here. Flagging this, so it doesn't get into production.
|
|
||
| const { status } = await waitForTransactionReceipt(config, { | ||
| hash, | ||
| chainId: statusSepolia.id, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Flagging to switch to hoodi once we migrate.
| l1ContractAddress: '0x508Ca82Df566dCD1B0DE8296e70a96332cD644ec', | ||
| l2ContractAddress: '0x508Ca82Df566dCD1B0DE8296e70a96332cD644ec', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it same address for l1 and l2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is definitely a mistake and they should match the same mainnet ones, thanks for spotting this
| INITIAL: 0, | ||
| DEPOSITS: 1, | ||
| STRATEGY_WITHDRAWAL: 2, | ||
| BRIDGING: 3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BRIDGING is a declared vault state but the new CTA logic never handles it, so the card falls through to Coming soon during the bridge phase. (getVaultCardCta)
So if the contract itself reports BRIDGING as the vault state, this function does not match it anywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for spotting this it is indeed missing the BRIDGING state
|
Hey @jkbktl
Let me know if I can support you in anything else |
Solves #1034