fix: Optimize RPC requests when predicting safe address #3780
Conversation
Branch preview✅ Deploy successful! Storybook: |
ESLint Summary View Full Report
Report generated by eslint-plus-action |
📦 Next.js Bundle Analysis for safe-wallet-webThis analysis was generated by the Next.js Bundle Analysis action. 🤖
|
| Page | Size (compressed) |
|---|---|
global |
950.06 KB (🟡 +31 B) |
Details
The global bundle is the javascript bundle that loads alongside every page. It is in its own category because its impact is much higher - an increase to its size means that every page on your website loads slower, and a decrease means every page loads faster.
Any third party scripts you have added directly to your app using the <script> tag are not accounted for in this analysis
If you want further insight into what is behind the changes, give @next/bundle-analyzer a try!
One Page Changed Size
The following page changed size from the code in this PR compared to its base branch:
| Page | Size (compressed) | First Load |
|---|---|---|
/new-safe/create |
26.68 KB (🟡 +10 B) |
976.74 KB |
Details
Only the gzipped size is provided here based on an expert tip.
First Load is the size of the global bundle plus the bundle for the individual page. If a user were to show up to your website and land on a given page, the first load size represents the amount of javascript that user would need to download. If next/link is used, subsequent page loads would only need to download that page's bundle (the number in the "Size" column), since the global bundle has already been downloaded.
Any third party scripts you have added directly to your app using the <script> tag are not accounted for in this analysis
Next to the size is how much the size has increased or decreased compared with the base branch of this PR. If this percentage has increased by 20% or more, there will be a red status indicator applied, indicating that special attention should be given to this.
Coverage report
Test suite run success1436 tests passing in 197 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 5b390e2 |
| chainId: BigInt(chainId), | ||
| safeAccountConfig: props.safeAccountConfig, | ||
| safeDeploymentConfig: { | ||
| saltNonce: props.saltNonce, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we do not pass in the safeVersion here the SDK will use its current DEFAULT_SAFE_VERSION.
But we store our LATEST_SAFE_VERSION in the local storage.
Updating the protocol-kit or our interface's safe version could lead to a mismatch which would lead to a mismatch of the predicted Safe address.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We call this function before a safe is created where we use LATEST_SAFE_VERSION and don't read anything from local storage. Still makes sense to explicitely add LATEST_SAFE_VERSION here in case there is some unexpected change on the protocol-kit side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But this function is also used when computing the safeAddress which we store in the undeployedSafes store: https://github.com/safe-global/safe-wallet-web/blob/dev/src/components/new-safe/create/steps/ReviewStep/index.tsx#L179C13-L179C24
So it would def. lead to problems once the versions do not match anymore.
|
LGTM Created saveral Safes and CF safes, I didn't had any issues |
What it solves
Noticed this when debugging failing e2e tests the other day. This change reduces the number of RPC requests when calling
getAvailableSaltNoncefrom 3 to 1. CallingSafeFactory.createalways checks if the factory contract(s) are deployed on the current network which is not necessary when we just want to predict a safe address.How this PR fixes it
SafeFactoryevery time we want to predict the safe addressHow to test it
To see the number of RPC requests in the network panel you have to change from passing the BrowserProvider to passing a JsonRPCProvider. Not sure if DevTools offers a way to observe requests coming from a browser extension.
Checklist