add arb #73
add arb #73
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across multiple files, primarily updating blockchain configurations to include support for the Arbitrum chain. Key modifications include changing the initial blockchain chain in Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
Deploying identity-on-chain-platform with
|
| Latest commit: |
189d6a2
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://6e8772a6.identity-on-chain-platform.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://feat-add-arb-chain.identity-on-chain-platform.pages.dev |
![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 (4)
src/utils/contracts/eas/contracts.ts (1)
17-17: Maintain consistent chain ID format across files.The chain ID uses underscore format (
42_161) while other files use plain number (42161). Although both are valid in TypeScript, consistency should be maintained.- chainId: 42_161, + chainId: 42161,src/services/eas/index.ts (1)
7-7: LGTM! Consider documenting enabled chains.The GraphQL endpoint is correctly configured for Arbitrum mainnet. Consider adding a comment explaining why certain chains are enabled while others are commented out.
+ // Active chains for the current deploymentsrc/main.tsx (1)
20-20: Consider maintaining consistent chain orderThe order of chains differs between
SUPPORTED_CHAINSand thechainsconfiguration:
SUPPORTED_CHAINS: [baseSepolia, optimismSepolia, arbitrum]chains: [optimismSepolia, baseSepolia, arbitrum]While this works functionally, maintaining consistent ordering improves code maintainability.
Consider applying this change:
export const SUPPORTED_CHAINS = [baseSepolia, optimismSepolia, arbitrum]; const config = getDefaultConfig({ appName: 'Identity on chain platform', projectId: projectID, - chains: [optimismSepolia, baseSepolia, arbitrum], + chains: [baseSepolia, optimismSepolia, arbitrum], transports: SUPPORTED_CHAINS.reduce( (obj, chain) => ({ ...obj, [chain.id]: http() }), {} ),Also applies to: 25-25
src/utils/contracts/app/contracts.ts (1)
470-703: Consider adding contract documentationWhile the implementation is correct, consider adding comments to document:
- The contract's purpose on Arbitrum
- Any chain-specific considerations
- Deployment details or verification links
Example addition:
{ + // Arbitrum Mainnet Application Manager Contract + // Deployed: <date> + // Verified: <etherscan_link> chainId: 42_161, address: '0x8006cCF2b3240bB716c86E5a16A9dD9b32eC5c53', abi: [
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
src/App.tsx(2 hunks)src/hooks/useAttestations.tsx(1 hunks)src/main.tsx(2 hunks)src/services/eas/index.ts(1 hunks)src/utils/contracts/app/contracts.ts(1 hunks)src/utils/contracts/eas/constants.ts(1 hunks)src/utils/contracts/eas/contracts.ts(1 hunks)src/utils/contracts/oid/contracts.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/hooks/useAttestations.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/utils/contracts/eas/constants.ts (1)
8-8: LGTM! Verify schema ID consistency across files.
The schema ID format is correct and follows the existing pattern.
Let's verify the schema ID consistency across files:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual usage context in contracts.ts to ensure complete consistency.
Schema ID is consistent across the codebase
The schema ID 0x6b5b50f2de8b387664838bd3c751e21f6b9aac7cf4bf5b2fb86e760b89a8a22d for Arbitrum (chain ID 42161) is consistently used in both files:
src/utils/contracts/eas/constants.tssrc/utils/contracts/eas/contracts.tswhere it's properly mapped with the corresponding EAS contract address
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the schema ID for chain 42161 is consistent across files
# Search for the schema ID in all files
rg -l '0x6b5b50f2de8b387664838bd3c751e21f6b9aac7cf4bf5b2fb86e760b89a8a22d'
Length of output: 148
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the context of how the schema ID is used in contracts.ts
rg -A 5 -B 5 '0x6b5b50f2de8b387664838bd3c751e21f6b9aac7cf4bf5b2fb86e760b89a8a22d' src/utils/contracts/eas/contracts.ts
Length of output: 347
src/utils/contracts/eas/contracts.ts (1)
16-22: Verify the Arbitrum EAS contract address.
The contract address differs from the pattern used in other chains. Let's verify its validity.
src/App.tsx (1)
57-57: Verify the intentional change of default chain
Changing the default chain from baseSepolia to arbitrum is a breaking change that affects the user experience. Please confirm:
- Is this change intentional?
- Has this been communicated to users?
- Are there any migration steps needed for existing users?
Let's check for any documentation updates regarding this change:
✅ Verification successful
Default chain change appears to be part of supported configuration
The change from baseSepolia to arbitrum as the fallback chain is consistent with the codebase configuration:
SUPPORTED_CHAINSinmain.tsxalready includes Arbitrum along withbaseSepoliaandoptimismSepolia- The EAS service has Arbitrum configuration at chainId 42161
- The change aligns with the existing multi-chain support structure
No breaking change concerns as:
- The app already supports multiple chains including Arbitrum
- The fallback is only used when user's
chainIdis not available - Users can still switch chains as needed through wallet connection
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for changes in documentation files
rg -i "arbitrum|default.?chain" $(fd -e md)
Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check git history for recent commits mentioning this change
git log --oneline -n 20 | grep -i "arbitrum\|chain"
# Let's also check for any configuration files or constants that might document default chains
rg -i "defaultChain|DEFAULT_CHAIN" --type ts --type tsx
# Check for any PR description or issue that might document this change
gh pr view --json title,body
Length of output: 166
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for chain-related configurations and imports
rg -i "defaultChain|DEFAULT_CHAIN|chain" --type ts
# Let's also look for any references to arbitrum or chain configuration
rg -i "arbitrum" --type ts
# Let's examine the specific changes in App.tsx
ast-grep --pattern 'initialChain={$_}'
Length of output: 6375
src/utils/contracts/oid/contracts.ts (2)
323-477: LGTM: Contract ABI is consistent
The contract ABI is identical to other chain implementations, which is good for maintaining consistency across chains.
320-322: Verify the Arbitrum contract deployment
Please confirm the contract deployment on Arbitrum:
- Has the contract been verified on Arbiscan?
- Does it use the same implementation as other chains?
Let's check for any related deployment configurations or scripts:
src/utils/contracts/app/contracts.ts (2)
474-702: LGTM: ABI structure is consistent with other chains
The ABI definition for the Arbitrum contract maintains consistency with existing chain configurations, including:
- Constructor with initialAuthority
- Access management functions and errors
- Application management functions (CRUD operations)
- Event definitions
470-473: Verify contract deployment on Arbitrum mainnet
The contract configuration for Arbitrum (chainId: 42_161) has been added with address 0x8006cCF2b3240bB716c86E5a16A9dD9b32eC5c53.
✅ Verification successful
Contract configuration for Arbitrum is properly integrated
The verification shows that:
- The contract address is consistently referenced only in
contracts.ts - Arbitrum chain (42_161) is properly configured across the system:
- EAS GraphQL endpoint in
services/eas/index.ts - EAS schema UUID in
contracts/eas/constants.ts - Related contract configurations in
oid/contracts.tsandeas/contracts.ts - Each contract has its own unique address for its specific purpose
- EAS GraphQL endpoint in
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify contract deployment and consistency across configuration files
# Check if the contract address is referenced in other configuration files
rg -l "0x8006cCF2b3240bB716c86E5a16A9dD9b32eC5c53"
# Check for any chain ID references to ensure consistent Arbitrum configuration
rg "42_*161|42161"
Length of output: 473
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the consistency of contract configurations across Arbitrum chain
# Check the contract configurations in all files for Arbitrum
ast-grep --pattern 'chainId: 42_161, address: $ADDRESS'
# Check if there are any other contract addresses used for Arbitrum
rg -B2 -A2 "chainId: 42_161"
Length of output: 974
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores