Refactor CreateProposalTemplateForm into generic ProposalBuilder

[mudrila]

This PR refactors CreateProposalTemplateForm into "general use" ProposalBuilder component and uses that component on CreateProposalTemplatePage and CreateProposalPage. This PR will accumulate other PRs related to this chain of improvements/refactoring.

• Depends on Use ProposalBuilder on Create Proposal page #1525

• Depends on Allow creating proposal with no function name / signature specified #1529

• Depends on Hotfix for missing bigNumberValue on ethValue while creating proposal from template #1528

• Closes Use components from "Proposal Template" builder in the standard "Proposal" builder #1363

• Closes Proposal (from template) that simply "sends ETH" fails #1513

• Closes "Submit and create proposal" button #1512

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for fractal-dev ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	b9514d9
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fractal-dev/deploys/661be82fe9eddf00080af3d2
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1524.app.dev.fractalframework.xyz
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[DarksightKellar]

LGTM.

#1525 should be merged first

[Da-Colon]

Awesome. Easy to follow. Just a few code moves, name and file changes. LGTM

Going to dismiss for the moment, to do a full live testing review, now that the branches are merged in

[tomstuart123]

Hi @mudrila

Did a few tests this morning (results below). Note - I'd like to get @Da-Colon / @adamgall in the UI creating proposals in the UI too to i) try some more complex Txs ii) try some from a multisig DAO.

Azorious DAO Proposal:

Proposal #1 - Tried to approve token for disperse

I got this error when I clicked create proposal UNLESS I had an ETH value specified

When I specified 0 ETH, the proposal was created and could be voted on and executed.

QUESTION - Based on the above flow, shouldn't ETH value have an '*' next to it in the UI so the user knows it is mandatory

Proposal #2 - Tried to create proposal to disperse token

• it worked as expected with the same flow here - https://deploy-preview-1524.app.dev.fractalframework.xyz/proposals/46?dao=sep:0x40C6E5eFCE3b1f101bFB59e876F14aa5455D3E19

So in summary everything seemed to work as intended but I think we should make it clearer that the ETH Value is now mandatory and do some more tests with multisig daos and sending ethvalue

[Da-Colon]

I noticed the helper text for eth value is 1.2 is this still correct? or is this a suppose to be in wei?

[Da-Colon]

Awesome. Tested and works well, sides from the known ETH Value issues already discussed.

I tested using the WETH contract. with through all three steps seperately (deposit, approve, withdraw), then tested the multitransaction with two deposits.

[tomstuart123]

I noticed the helper text for eth value is 1.2 is this still correct? or is this a suppose to be in wei?

good point, can we confirm?

Also @mudrila did you say at standup that my asterix point above is solved by the 'hot fix' PR?

[mudrila]

I noticed the helper text for eth value is 1.2 is this still correct? or is this a suppose to be in wei?

Yup, that's correct - we're exponentiating this later on

[tomstuart123]

Hi @mudrila

Did a few tests this morning (results below). Note - I'd like to get @Da-Colon / @adamgall in the UI creating proposals in the UI too to i) try some more complex Txs ii) try some from a multisig DAO.

Azorious DAO Proposal:

Proposal #1 - Tried to approve token for disperse I got this error when I clicked create proposal UNLESS I had an ETH value specified When I specified 0 ETH, the proposal was created and could be voted on and executed.

QUESTION - Based on the above flow, shouldn't ETH value have an '*' next to it in the UI so the user knows it is mandatory

Proposal #2 - Tried to create proposal to disperse token

• it worked as expected with the same flow here - https://deploy-preview-1524.app.dev.fractalframework.xyz/proposals/46?dao=sep:0x40C6E5eFCE3b1f101bFB59e876F14aa5455D3E19

So in summary everything seemed to work as intended but I think we should make it clearer that the ETH Value is now mandatory and do some more tests with multisig daos and sending ethvalue

@mudrila - I tried to redo the same two proposals above.

The first went without any issue

The second wouldn't execute and I got proposal failed with the below error message.

Any ideas?

[tomstuart123]

@mudrila apologies, the bug above was me not wrapping the value / address with []... AGAIN.

My bad, the proposal got created. I just want to do a few more multisig create proposals to match these azorious ones. I'll approve my end of day

[adamgall]

@mudrila can you please handle these conflicts? The "bigint" PR was merged, and you have quite a few changes to various BigNumber properties in this PR.

[adamgall]

Oops, forgot to leave a comment on the review I just left. Just one small change with the change in i18n.

There's a lot happening in this PR, but the changes seem relatively straightforward, so I have no major comments or suggestions. Nice job!

[adamgall]

Actually, just going to leave an "Approve" on here. Would like that English string to get cleaned up though.

[tomstuart123]

@mudrila apologies, the bug above was me not wrapping the value / address with []... AGAIN.

My bad, the proposal got created. I just want to do a few more multisig create proposals to match these azorious ones. I'll approve my end of day

I @mudrila I got the multisig testing done this half,. To add to the above it worked:

1. across three different contracts. 2) with and without eth values

will approve this now

[tomstuart123]

hahah just realised it was merged yesterday. Nice :)