FRO-752: Verify Contract - Contract Address & Verification Method #1187
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
6 Skipped Deployments
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new feature for EVM contract details by adding an onboarding section to help users verify unverified contracts. The changes span multiple files, including creating a new Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Finishing Touches
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
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/NotVerifiedDetails.tsx (1)
21-52: Consider improving accessibility.The UI implementation looks good, but could benefit from some accessibility improvements:
- Add
aria-labelto the clickable text for screen readers- Add keyboard navigation support for the clickable text span
<Text as="span" cursor="pointer" + role="button" + tabIndex={0} + aria-label="Verify contract" + onKeyDown={(e) => e.key === 'Enter' && handleNavigate()} color="primary.main" transition="all 0.25s ease-in-out" _hover={{ textDecoration: "underline", textDecorationColor: "primary.light", }} onClick={handleNavigate} >src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx (1)
54-55: Consider removing TODO comment.The TODO comment should be addressed or removed if no longer relevant.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/NotVerifiedDetails.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/index.ts(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx(4 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/index.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/index.ts
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/NotVerifiedDetails.tsx (2)
1-8: LGTM! Clean imports and well-defined props interface.The component has clear dependencies and a properly typed interface.
10-20: LGTM! Navigation logic is well-implemented.The component uses the
useInternalNavigatehook effectively for handling verification navigation.src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx (3)
10-16: LGTM! Clean type imports.The type imports are well-organized and properly scoped.
22-23: LGTM! Props interface update.The props interface is properly updated to handle both hex and bech32 address formats.
63-63: LGTM! Style update.The background color change from border to solid background improves visual consistency.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/index.tsx (1)
129-130: LGTM! Props update.The props update correctly handles both address formats required by the component.
CHANGELOG.md (1)
42-42: LGTM! Well-formatted changelog entry.The changelog entry follows the proper format and clearly describes the new feature.
Poafs1
changed the title
Poafs1
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyTop.tsx (1)
8-12: Fix grammar in the descriptive text.There's a grammatical error in the text content.
- Once verified, users will able to access its source code in contract + Once verified, users will be able to access its source code in the contract details page.src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (5)
27-28: Remove commented code.These commented lines should either be removed or implemented if needed.
49-49: Remove commented code.This commented line should either be removed or implemented if needed.
54-58: Prevent potential memory leak in useEffect.The event tracking effect should be cleaned up to prevent potential memory leaks.
useEffect(() => { - if (router.isReady && validated.success) - track(AmpEvent.TO_EVM_CONTRACT_VERIFY); + let isSubscribed = true; + if (router.isReady && validated.success && isSubscribed) { + track(AmpEvent.TO_EVM_CONTRACT_VERIFY); + } + return () => { + isSubscribed = false; + }; // eslint-disable-next-line react-hooks/exhaustive-deps }, [router.isReady]);
18-18: Add prop types for InvalidContract component.The
InvalidContractcomponent should have its props properly typed, even if it's currently not using any.-const InvalidContract = () => <InvalidState title="Contract does not exist" />; +interface InvalidContractProps {} + +const InvalidContract: React.FC<InvalidContractProps> = () => ( + <InvalidState title="Contract does not exist" /> +);
24-46: Implement error boundary for EvmContractVerifyBody.The component handles various error states but would benefit from a proper error boundary to catch runtime errors.
Consider wrapping the component with an error boundary to gracefully handle runtime errors:
import { ErrorBoundary } from 'react-error-boundary'; const EvmContractVerifyBody = ({ contractAddress, }: EvmContractVerifyBodyProps) => { return ( <ErrorBoundary FallbackComponent={({ error }) => ( <ErrorFetching dataName={`Error: ${error.message}`} /> )} > {/* existing component content */} </ErrorBoundary> ); };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/lib/amplitude/types.ts(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyTop.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts(1 hunks)src/pages/[network]/evm-contracts/[contractAddress]/verify/index.tsx(1 hunks)src/pages/evm-contracts/[contractAddress]/verify/index.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- src/pages/evm-contracts/[contractAddress]/verify/index.tsx
- src/pages/[network]/evm-contracts/[contractAddress]/verify/index.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts (1)
4-6: LGTM! Well-structured validation schema.Good use of Zod for query parameter validation, reusing the existing
zHexAddr20type.src/lib/amplitude/types.ts (1)
58-58: LGTM! Analytics event properly added.The new event follows the existing pattern and is placed in the correct section with other navigation events.
Poafs1
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (20)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/ContractLicenseInfoAccordion.tsx (3)
12-18: Consider adding z-index for sticky positioningThe accordion uses sticky positioning which might cause overlay issues with other elements. Consider adding a z-index to ensure proper stacking context.
<Accordion allowToggle defaultIndex={[0]} variant="transparent" position="sticky" top={0} + zIndex={1} >
19-43: Enhance accessibility with ARIA labelsConsider adding aria-labels to improve screen reader experience and accessibility.
- <AccordionItem> + <AccordionItem aria-label="Contract License Information"> <AccordionButton> <Text variant="body2" fontWeight={700} color="text.main" textAlign="start" + as="h2" >
1-52: Well-structured component with good separation of concernsThe component follows a clean, functional approach with good use of Chakra UI components. The accordion pattern is an excellent choice for progressive disclosure of information, making the interface more digestible for users.
Consider extracting the license description text to a constants file if it needs to be reused or internationalized in the future.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperJsonInput.tsx (1)
1-3: Component needs implementation and type safetyThe component is currently a placeholder and requires:
- TypeScript interface for component props
- Form implementation for JSON input
- Validation logic for Vyper contract JSON
- Error handling for invalid inputs
Would you like me to provide a detailed implementation template with proper TypeScript types and form handling?
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperUploadFile.tsx (1)
1-3: Implement file upload functionality with validationThe component needs:
- File upload handler using a file input or drag-and-drop
- Validation for Vyper source files
- Error handling for invalid files or upload failures
- Progress indicator for large files
Would you like me to provide a template implementation with file upload handling and validation?
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityHardhat.tsx (1)
1-3: Implement Hardhat verification workflowThe component requires:
- Input fields for Hardhat configuration
- Build artifact upload/parsing
- Contract selection for multi-contract projects
- Compiler version and optimization settings
Would you like me to provide a template implementation with Hardhat-specific verification flow?
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityFoundry.tsx (1)
1-3: Implement Foundry verification workflowThe component requires:
- Input fields for Foundry configuration
- Build artifact upload/parsing
- Contract selection for multi-contract projects
- Compiler version and optimization settings
Would you like me to provide a template implementation with Foundry-specific verification flow?
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyFooter.tsx (1)
36-45: Consider responsive design adjustmentsThe grid template columns and padding are fixed which might not work well on smaller screens. Consider making these values responsive.
sx={{ backgroundColor: "background.main", borderColor: "gray.700", display: "grid", - gridTemplateColumns: "6fr 4fr", + gridTemplateColumns: { base: "1fr", md: "6fr 4fr" }, - px: "96px", + px: { base: "4", md: "8", lg: "96px" }, "> div": { width: "100%", }, }}src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyper.tsx (1)
13-28: Consider adding error boundariesThe switch statement renders different components without error boundaries. Consider wrapping the rendered components to gracefully handle potential rendering errors.
+import { ErrorBoundary } from "lib/components/error-boundary"; const EvmContractVerifyVyperOptions = ({ control, }: EvmContractVerifyVyperProps) => { const verifyFormOption = useWatch({ control, name: "verifyForm.option" }); + const renderComponent = () => { switch (verifyFormOption) { case VerificationOptions.UploadFile: return <EvmContractVerifyVyperUploadFile />; case VerificationOptions.ContractCode: return <EvmContractVerifyVyperContractCode />; case VerificationOptions.JsonInput: return <EvmContractVerifyVyperJsonInput />; default: return null; } + }; + return <ErrorBoundary>{renderComponent()}</ErrorBoundary>; };src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidity.tsx (1)
15-34: Consider extracting common verification logicThe switch statement pattern is duplicated between Solidity and Vyper components. Consider creating a common higher-order component or hook to reduce duplication.
// src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/hooks/useVerificationComponent.ts export const useVerificationComponent = ( control: Control<EvmContractVerifyForm>, components: Record<VerificationOptions, React.ComponentType> ) => { const verifyFormOption = useWatch({ control, name: "verifyForm.option" }); return components[verifyFormOption] ?? null; };src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyOptions.tsx (3)
9-11: Update interface name to match component purposeThe interface name
EvmContractVerifyVyperPropsis misleading as it's used for the general options component.-interface EvmContractVerifyVyperProps { +interface EvmContractVerifyOptionsProps { control: Control<EvmContractVerifyForm>; }
16-19: Fix typo in field nameThere's a typo in the field name
verifyFormOptinField(should be "Option" not "Optin").-const { field: verifyFormOptinField } = useController({ +const { field: verifyFormOptionField } = useController({ control, name: "verifyForm.option", });
35-104: Extract common Radio styles and add responsive grid
- Radio components have duplicate styling props.
- Grid layout should be responsive for better mobile experience.
+const commonRadioProps = { + variant: "gray-card", + width: "fit-content", + overflow: "hidden", + w: "full", + size: "sm", +}; -<Grid gridTemplateColumns="repeat(3, 1fr)" gap={4} maxW={640}> +<Grid + gridTemplateColumns={{ + base: "1fr", + md: "repeat(2, 1fr)", + lg: "repeat(3, 1fr)" + }} + gap={4} + maxW={640} +> {/* Apply commonRadioProps to each Radio component */} - <Radio - variant="gray-card" - width="fit-content" - value={VerificationOptions.UploadFiles} - overflow="hidden" - w="full" - size="sm" - > + <Radio {...commonRadioProps} value={VerificationOptions.UploadFiles}>src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts (2)
4-9: Address the TODO comment about license types.The comment indicates that more license types need to be added. Consider completing the license types implementation or creating a tracking issue.
Would you like me to help create a list of common open source licenses to add?
76-81: Consider adding more validation for contract address and compiler version.The form schema could benefit from additional validation:
- Add regex pattern validation for compiler version format
- Add custom error messages for better user feedback
export const zEvmContractAddressAndLicenseForm = z.object({ contractAddress: zHexAddr20, licenseType: z.nativeEnum(LicenseType), language: z.nativeEnum(EvmProgrammingLanguage), - compilerVersion: z.string().refine((val) => val !== ""), + compilerVersion: z.string() + .refine((val) => val !== "", { + message: "Compiler version is required" + }) + .refine( + (val) => /^\d+\.\d+\.\d+$/.test(val), + { + message: "Invalid version format. Expected: x.y.z (e.g. 0.8.0)" + } + ), });src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (1)
187-190: Improve verification method description.The helper text could be more descriptive to better guide users.
- Please ensure the setting is the matching with the created - contract + Please ensure the compiler settings match those used to create + the contract. Incorrect settings will result in verification failure.CHANGELOG.md (1)
42-42: Enhance changelog entry with more details.The current entry could be more descriptive about the changes and their impact.
- - [#1187](https://github.com/alleslabs/celatone-frontend/pull/1187) Add onboarding section to EVM contract details page and add EVM contract verify page + - [#1187](https://github.com/alleslabs/celatone-frontend/pull/1187) Add onboarding section to EVM contract details page and verification workflow: + - New verification page with compiler version selection + - Support for multiple programming languages (Solidity, Vyper) + - Various license type options + - Improved user guidance through verification processsrc/lib/hooks/useStepper.ts (3)
4-8: Consider adding type safety for step numbersThe hook accepts a
totalparameter but doesn't enforce it being positive or non-zero.Consider adding runtime validation:
export const useStepper = ( - total: number, + total: number & { __brand: 'PositiveNumber' }, handleSubmit: () => void, handleBack?: () => void ) => { + if (total <= 0) throw new Error('total must be positive');
32-39: Consider handling edge cases in previous step navigationThe
handlePreviousimplementation could benefit from additional safeguards.Consider adding validation:
const handlePrevious = useCallback(() => { + if (Number(currentStep) <= 1) { + return handleBack?.() ?? router.back(); + } const params = new URLSearchParams(searchParams); params.set("step", String(Number(currentStep) - 1)); - return currentStep && Number(currentStep) > 1 - ? router.replace(`${pathname}?${params.toString()}`) - : (handleBack?.() ?? router.back()); + return router.replace(`${pathname}?${params.toString()}`); }, [currentStep, pathname, router, searchParams, handleBack]);
41-48: Consider memoizing return valuesThe returned object is recreated on every render, which might cause unnecessary re-renders in consuming components.
Consider using
useMemo:+ const stepperState = useMemo(() => ({ + currentStepIndex: Number(currentStep) - 1, + handleNext, + handlePrevious, + hasNext: Number(currentStep) < total, + hasPrevious: Number(currentStep) > 1, + }), [currentStep, handleNext, handlePrevious, total]); + - return { - currentStepIndex: Number(currentStep) - 1, - handleNext, - handlePrevious, - hasNext: Number(currentStep) < total, - hasPrevious: Number(currentStep) > 1, - }; + return stepperState;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (22)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/lib/components/forms/SelectInput.tsx(3 hunks)src/lib/hooks/index.ts(1 hunks)src/lib/hooks/useStepper.ts(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/components/AddNetworkStepper.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/hooks/useNetworkStepper.ts(0 hunks)src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/index.tsx(2 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/ContractLicenseInfoAccordion.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyFooter.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyOptions.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidity.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityContractCode.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityFoundry.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityHardhat.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityJsonInput.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityUploadFiles.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyper.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperContractCode.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperJsonInput.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperUploadFile.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/hooks/useNetworkStepper.ts
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/components/AddNetworkStepper.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (15)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/ContractLicenseInfoAccordion.tsx (2)
1-10: LGTM! Clean import structureImports are well-organized and all imported components are utilized.
44-49: Update documentation link before deploymentThe TODO comment indicates a missing documentation link. This should be addressed before deployment to ensure users can access the contract license types documentation.
Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue to track this TODO item?
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyFooter.tsx (1)
1-47: Well-structured component with clear navigation controls!The component has a clean implementation with proper type safety and consistent styling.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyper.tsx (1)
1-38: Clean implementation with good separation of concerns!The component is well-structured with proper type safety and consistent styling.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidity.tsx (1)
1-44: Well-structured component with consistent implementation!The component maintains consistency with the Vyper version while handling additional verification options.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/EvmContractVerifyOptions.tsx (1)
1-108: Overall implementation is solid!The component handles different verification options well with proper form integration.
src/lib/components/forms/SelectInput.tsx (3)
17-20: LGTM! Props interface extension looks good.The new props (
label,isRequired) are properly typed and extend the base Props interface from chakra-react-select.
59-83: LGTM! Label implementation looks good.The label implementation:
- Uses proper positioning with z-index handling
- Has good accessibility with required indicator
- Properly handles disabled state with opacity
84-140: LGTM! Select component implementation looks good.The Select component properly:
- Handles all passed props including the new isDisabled
- Maintains consistent styling with chakraStyles
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (1)
33-34:⚠️ Potential issueAdd contract address validation.
The TODO comment indicates missing EVM contract address validation. This should be implemented for security.
src/lib/hooks/index.ts (1)
16-16: LGTM! Export follows established patternThe new export for
useStepperis consistent with the file's existing export pattern.src/lib/hooks/useStepper.ts (2)
23-30: LGTM! Robust next step handlingThe
handleNextimplementation correctly handles:
- URL parameter updates
- Boundary conditions
- Submission on final step
15-21: Review the effect's dependency arrayThe effect's empty dependency array might cause issues if
currentStepor other dependencies change during the component's lifecycle.Consider adding necessary dependencies:
}, []); + }, [currentStep, router, pathname, searchParams]);src/lib/pages/custom-network/manual/index.tsx (2)
16-20: LGTM! Clean import organizationThe imports are well-organized and the new imports are properly grouped.
103-105: Verify navigation behavior consistencyThe navigation callback looks correct, but we should ensure it maintains the same behavior as the previous implementation.
Let's verify the navigation pattern:
✅ Verification successful
Navigation pattern is consistent with codebase standards
The navigation callback correctly follows the established pattern and maintains consistent behavior with related features, particularly the JSON form implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other usages of similar navigation patterns rg -l 'navigate\(\{\s*pathname:' | xargs rg 'pathname:'Length of output: 4186
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/vyper/EvmContractVerifyVyperContractCode.tsx
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityJsonInput.tsx
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityUploadFiles.tsx
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/components/solidity/EvmContractVerifySolidityContractCode.tsx
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx (1)
Add analytics tracking for contract verification flow
The codebase currently tracks navigation to the verification page (
TO_EVM_CONTRACT_VERIFY) but lacks tracking for:
- Verification attempt outcomes (success/failure)
- User interactions during the verification process
- Step-by-step progress tracking
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
36-47: Verify analytics tracking for contract verification flow.Since this component is part of the contract verification flow, ensure that appropriate analytics events are being tracked for:
- User interactions with the verification section
- Successful/failed verification attempts
- Navigation between different steps of the verification process
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for analytics tracking related to contract verification rg -A 2 "track.*" --glob "src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/**/*.{ts,tsx}"Length of output: 2103
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for verification-related analytics events and components echo "=== Searching for verification events ===" rg "AmpEvent\." --glob "src/lib/amplitude.{ts,tsx}" echo -e "\n=== Searching for verification components and their tracking ===" fd "verification" --glob "src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/**/*.{ts,tsx}" --exec rg -l "track|AmpEvent"Length of output: 682
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for amplitude events file and verification-related components echo "=== Searching for amplitude events ===" fd "amplitude" -e ts -e tsx echo -e "\n=== Searching for verification components ===" fd "verification" -e ts -e tsx echo -e "\n=== Searching for contract verification tracking ===" rg -i "contract.*verif.*track" -g "*.{ts,tsx}"Length of output: 1499
Script:
#!/bin/bash echo "=== Checking amplitude events ===" cat src/lib/amplitude/Amplitude.ts echo -e "\n=== Searching for EVM contract verification components ===" rg -l "evm.*verif|verif.*evm" -g "*.{ts,tsx}" echo -e "\n=== Checking EVM contract details components ===" fd . src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details -e ts -e tsx --exec catLength of output: 27072
Script:
#!/bin/bash echo "=== Checking amplitude types ===" cat src/lib/amplitude/types.ts echo -e "\n=== Checking NotVerifiedDetails implementation ===" cat src/lib/components/evm-verify-section/NotVerifiedDetails.tsxLength of output: 11378
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (1)
107-110:⚠️ Potential issueImplement proper form validation.
The
isFormDisabledfunction currently returns false without any validation logic.const isFormDisabled = () => { - // TODO: Update the validation - return false; + const { contractAddress, licenseType, language, compilerVersion } = watch(); + return !contractAddress || !licenseType || !language || !compilerVersion; };
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts (1)
23-42: Consider reducing schema duplication.The Solidity option schemas follow a repetitive pattern. Consider creating a helper function to reduce duplication.
const createOptionSchema = (option: VerificationOptions) => z.object({ option: z.literal(option) }); export const zEvmContractVerifySolidityOptionUploadFilesForm = createOptionSchema(VerificationOptions.UploadFiles); // ... repeat for other optionssrc/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (2)
31-32: Address TODO comment for EVM contract address.The TODO comment indicates missing functionality for EVM contract address handling.
Would you like me to help implement the EVM contract address functionality or create a GitHub issue to track this task?
88-105: Replace hardcoded compiler versions with API data.The TODO comment indicates that compiler versions should be fetched from an API instead of being hardcoded.
Would you like me to help implement the API integration for compiler versions or create a GitHub issue to track this task?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx(4 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/index.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx(1 hunks)src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/index.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (10)
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/types.ts (3)
1-21: Well-structured type definitions and query params!The enums and query params are well-defined with clear naming conventions and proper type validation.
57-67: Clean union type implementation!The union schema effectively combines all verification options while maintaining clear separation between Vyper and Solidity options.
69-74: Simplify string validation as per team convention.Replace
z.string().refine((val) => val !== "")withz.string()for consistency with team conventions.export const zEvmContractAddressAndLicenseForm = z.object({ contractAddress: zHexAddr20, - licenseType: z.string().refine((val) => val !== ""), + licenseType: z.string(), language: z.nativeEnum(EvmProgrammingLanguage), - compilerVersion: z.string().refine((val) => val !== ""), + compilerVersion: z.string(), });src/lib/pages/evm-contract-verify/index.tsx (2)
34-37: Well-implemented analytics tracking!The analytics event is properly tracked only after the router is ready.
112-238: Well-structured responsive layout!The form layout is well-organized with proper responsive design and mobile handling.
src/lib/pages/evm-contract-details/components/EvmContractDetailsOverview.tsx (5)
1-16: LGTM! Import statements and type definitions are well-organized.The imports and type definitions are properly structured and align with the component's requirements.
22-23: Great improvement in address property naming!The renaming of
contractAddresstocontractAddressBechand addition ofcontractAddressHeximproves clarity by explicitly indicating the address format being used.
54-55: Address the TODO comment and verify component implementation.The TODO comment suggests that not all status cases are handled. Please clarify:
- What other status cases need to be supported?
- Is there a timeline for implementing these cases?
Also, consider whether
NotVerifiedDetailsneeds additional props beyond just the contract address for complete functionality.
63-63: LGTM! Styling change improves visual consistency.The switch to a solid background color using Chakra UI's theme system is appropriate.
151-154: LGTM! Prop updates are consistent.The address prop updates in both
AssetsSectionandEvmContractDetailsTxscomponents correctly use the newcontractAddressBechproperty.Also applies to: 156-160
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Amplitude Tracking
Documentation