feat: add xcm dry run api

[noahjoeris]

This PR

• adds automatic dry run when available for xcm transfers

Design Decisions

• If no dry run is available we treat it as if it has succeeded
• The dry run returns precise xcm fees. But we run the dry run after the form was filled out and immediately before the tx-sign popup appears. So I decided to not use those fees for now. Alternatively, we can explore running the dry run as part of fetching the fees in txSummary. I would prefer to do that in a seperate PR tho.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
turtle-app	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 23, 2025 2:40pm
turtle-site	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 23, 2025 2:40pm

[NunoAlexandre]

@noahjoeris

If no dry run is available we treat it as if it has succeeded

this is not good. Using a Result type here would be best. If it ran, we check for the dry run result, if it failed we can for example capture the error with sentry and continue with the rest of the execution.

The dry run returns precise xcm fees. But we run the dry run after the form was filled out and immediately before the tx-sign popup appears. So I decided to not use those fees for now. Alternatively, we can explore running the dry run as part of fetching the fees in txSummary. I would prefer to do that in a seperate PR tho.

Have you seen how different the xcm fees are? because I'd guess we are talking about a few cents difference at worse? dry running is probably a slow-enough operation to make this idea a no-go. Additionally, the user's wallet will also provide a fee estimate and that should be the last amount the user should consider. So I wouldn't spend time on this and run the risk of worsening the ux.

[noahjoeris]

Could you look at the code? I implemented it how you described no?

[NunoAlexandre]

Could you look at the code? I implemented it how you described no?

yes but you used booleans and exceptions instead of a well typed Result approach. That's where my suggestion lays.

[noahjoeris]

@NunoAlexandre Can you check again

[noahjoeris]

Thanks for your input guys. I updated it accordingly

[NunoAlexandre]

Nice :) thanks for considering my feedback

[Victor-Salomon]

Great work @noahjoeris 💥