Redesign all alert forms (prioritize errors)

Modal
- https://www.loom.com/share/0371f3dcf403467dbae4a812fd703fc4
- https://www.figma.com/file/rdBPNzn7Klk6RG1LHUCE5B/Screen-Designs?type=design&node-id=11044-313604&mode=design&t=KTNoKYEmMo4l5KRt-11

Table TBD

Updates to Services form

![Screenshot 2023-08-30 at 11 53 54 AM](https://github.com/highlight/highlight/assets/58678/81e65b8a-3174-44e9-b329-e1c1cfbb710c)

Users can have more than one project id. Our code doesn't include that in the autocreated service.

# Build the Error Monitoring Product We Want

There been some exciting progress around the error monitoring product in Q2 and we feel that there's still a lot of work we could do in Q3 to build the error monitoring product we all would enjoy using. 

https://www.notion.so/runhighlight/Error-Monitoring-Conversation-Doc-ef6ccacf0c1b447ab09ee3cfd8ec0085

[Q3] Error Monitoring

Vercel log drain service name needs project id

Add service to client SDK

GitHub integration should validate that the issue title is not too long.

See the error page on Highlight:
https://app.highlight.io/1/errors/JNAgFj6U9cpfsFKjz9lrAOJjmpQ6

# Increase % of Accounts Getting Value from Highlight

Many people who sign up for Highlight never get to the point where they receive any value from the product. They create their account but fall off before fully integrating and don't come back. We want to ensure as many people as possible are able to integrate and get maximum value from Highlight.

In addition to product changes, we know we want to roll out some process changes to distribute the workload of supporting our customers.

https://www.notion.so/runhighlight/Activation-Engagement-Conversation-Doc-5f37a174551848428478f2fec3d6b5ec

[Q3] Customer Success / Engagement

error creating GitHub task: POST https://api.github.com/repos/MediaJel/mediajel-dashboard/issues: 422 Validation Failed [{Resource:Issue Field:title Code:custom Message:title is too long (maximum is 256 characters)}]

Roll out session clickhouse to all projects

2023 Q3

We started laying the foundations for this with our OTEL work and working on the network request details panel in Q2. We want to flesh this offering out more and figure out what the tracing product should look lik, and how we can make it simple to set up and start using it.
https://www.notion.so/runhighlight/Tracing-Metrics-Conversation-Doc-4763635e704447b09acb4ddcdde8edbf

[Q3] Tracing Product / Search

Replace Opensearch with Clickhouse for sessions

* experiment with schema and populate with existing session data to get a performance poc
* replace current opensearch sessions index with clickhouse table
* cleanup frontend / backend logic that generates opensearch queries
* query builder code should be refactored (consolidate session / error query builder)

from email thread FMfcgzGsmNZFDnhKJtpZWWgknWtMRXnB, fix occurrences display

Move sessions opensearch usage to clickhouse

when checking the button in the `/settings` page, we should have an explicit warning modal that explains what this setting will do.

good first issue

💎 Bounty

💰 Rewarded

Connect your code to your conversations; stay updated on projects, fix bugs, and move more work forward—without leaving Slack.

[Learn more and get started](https://slack.github.com/)

By installing or using the app, you agree to the [Terms and Conditions](https://github.com/integrations/slack/blob/master/docs/terms-and-conditions.md).

Slack

enabling filtering sessions without errors should have a warning callout

"would be great if the scroll position was preserved when you went back to the events list since our sessions are quite long and have a lot of events, so it's hard to keep track of where you were looking at (also the ability to jump to the timestamp of an event without viewing the event's detail would work too)"

help wanted

When clicking into the detail of an event and going back, preserve scroll position

we should show the onboarding flow here for someone coming from https://vercel.com/integrations/highlight without a highlight account. this used to work before as this was a requirement from vercel

See the error page on Highlight:
https://app.highlight.io/1/sessions/ot1uuQER0i2RPJdvKnedvhvcBQgu

[Q3] Customer Feedback

vercel integration callback does not show onboarding flow

`FindOrCreateService` in store/services.go should be a `CreateOrUpdateService` such that we are updating the service with additional information that comes in (e.g. the SDK is now passing `process.*` information, see #6465)

Creating a service in the otel ingest should handle updates

Take the logs query builder, remove any logs-specific logic and set it up on the traces page to start building the traces search UI.

Add filtering on traces search UI

Looks like this is a separate error from the previous issue.

Possibility related to changes introduced in https://github.com/highlight/highlight/issues/5556 to `backend/util/tracer.go:95` according to the stacktrace

See the error page on Highlight:
https://app.highlight.io/1/errors/MSQYy41pUCXpJREijV0zfWRmkAFv

runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference

Looking at the records created from #6328, it seems like only the Go and Ruby SDKs are setting the `process.*` information. We need to figure out why the other SDKs aren't passing that along.

Created services lack process information

some feedback on our search UI (start watching at 0:30):
Our “visited url contains” url parameter seems broken
Every time this person applies a segment, the date filter breaks.

https://highlightcorp.slack.com/archives/C02N2AZS8BV/p1693335605830699

Search UI feedback

Add service to nextjs SDK

When order is in ascending order
![Screenshot 2023-08-29 at 12 10 05 PM](https://github.com/highlight/highlight/assets/58678/7cb054ec-8e2a-47cb-85b4-b2f9232c9da7)

it's not obvious why there are no recent sessions in the closed state (related [thread](https://highlightcorp.slack.com/archives/C02N2AZS8BV/p1693323470915419)).


Alternatively, we could also consider removing the Order feature entirely. We don't have it for errors and it's hard to justify why someone would want to sort this way.

Blocked until we complete some design work

blocked:design

Add ux to inform the user if the sort order on sessions is inversed

Create a [helm](https://helm.sh/) chart that will deploy the current hobby application in a kubernetes enviornment.
Should deploy infrastructure in a clustered scalable way ([example](https://bitnami.com/stack/kafka/helm)) that would allow to scale out.
Should use shared volumes for backing data stores to allow persisting data.
Should handle some networking setup for routing to the backend / frontend containers.


argo helm chart for kubernetes deployments

Move over errors to clickhouse

I'm following the Thirdweb docs [here](https://portal.thirdweb.com/solidity/base-contracts/managed-account-factory) for the new Managed Smart Wallets and have created a new AccountFactory and Account contract as there are some customizations we require.

```
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
pragma solidity ^0.8.11;

import "../node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/managed/ManagedAccountFactory.sol";

contract NormalAccountFactory is ManagedAccountFactory {
    constructor(IEntryPoint _entrypoint) ManagedAccountFactory(_entrypoint) {}
}
```

After installing the latest `@thirdweb-dev/contracts@3.5.4` to my Truffle project and setting up these custom contracts, I continue to get the following compile errors when running migrations or tests:

```
ParserError: Source "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/core/Router.sol" not found
  --> project:/node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/managed/ManagedAccount.sol:18:1:
   |
18 | import "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/core/Router.sol";
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

,ParserError: Source "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/interface/IBaseRouter.sol" not found
 --> project:/node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/utils/BaseRouter.sol:7:1:
  |
7 | import "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/interface/IBaseRouter.sol";
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

,ParserError: Source "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/core/Router.sol" not found
  --> project:/node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/utils/BaseRouter.sol:10:1:
   |
10 | import "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/core/Router.sol";
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

,ParserError: Source "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/presets/utils/StringSet.sol" not found
  --> project:/node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/utils/BaseRouter.sol:13:1:
   |
13 | import "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/presets/utils/StringSet.sol";
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

,ParserError: Source "lib/dynamic-contracts/src/presets/utils/ExtensionState.sol" not found
  --> project:/node_modules/@thirdweb-dev/contracts/smart-wallet/utils/BaseRouter.sol:14:1:
```

Thirdweb's Managed Smart Account contracts require an additional Thirdweb repo (@thirdweb-dev/dynamic-contracts), which can be seen in the git modules [here](https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/contracts/blob/main/.gitmodules#L7).

I also understand that `@thirdweb-dev/contracts@3.5.4` has a `/lib` directory housing the various git modules used throughout the project, but it seems that these aren't included within the npm package. Inspecting `@thirdweb-dev/contracts` within my node_modules reveals zero configuration for these required git modules and the `/lib` directory is full of random contracts (i.e. `TWAddress.sol`, `TWStrings.sol`, etc), which is why these errors are happening.

Does anyone know how to best approach fixing this, or is this potentially a bug within the npm package?

Thanks!

Managed Smart Wallet contracts fail to Truffle compile: "lib/dynamic-contracts" not found

I have deployed the [OpenEditionERC721](https://thirdweb.com/thirdweb.eth/OpenEditionERC721/1.0.0) contract on the Polygon Mumbai network. Here's the [contract address](0x59280EeE2C64f9Fb559c0E44f90e7d71bDF97196).

The contract accepts payments in a custom contract of [DERC 20](0xfe4F5145f6e09952a5ba9e956ED0C25e3Fa4c7F1).

![image](https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/contracts/assets/34797952/233ac093-64e0-4ab8-8049-2c915b49f331)

I only have 2 DERC20 tokens in my wallet address `0x30372164971e8174315e3D0724bFc44fe53EA195`.

When I try to purchase an NFT, the transaction completes successfully, but the tokens are not deducted from my wallet. Shouldn't the contract throw an error before the transaction?

Custom Tokens Not Deducted on NFT Claim

Add test & gas benchmark for Marketplace contract to gasreport.txt

I personally want to help improve gas efficiency with `smart-wallet` contracts through gas optimization bounty program, but I can't find related benchmark tests in the folder.

Missing benchmarks for multiple contracts

After 6 or 7 proposals that have descriptions of ~250 words, the [getAllProposals](https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/contracts/blob/main/contracts/vote/VoteERC20.sol#L122) function of the vote contract no longer responds with data.

Here are two examples onchain:

https://goerli.basescan.org/address/0x570f497964efb9564af6fc4175809c8e8ec2263e#readContract
https://goerli.basescan.org/address/0x314bf06caee105883b5f8f5df4f6aedee9abc436#readContract

It breaks the dashboard for the proposal extension page.

![Screenshot 2023-08-11 at 4 27 14 PM](https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/contracts/assets/89474773/22970067-f470-4016-a87a-27a14b882b8c)


getAllProposals for vote contract fails to return data

Hi there,

I was thinking about extending marketplace permissions, I need a "buyer" permission. so not every address can buy a listing. it is possible to do that?

[Question] Extending marketplace permission

npx hardhat run ./scripts/deploy/fullV2Setup.ts
```
   .then(f => f.deploy(thirdwebFee.address, options))
                                                 ~~~~~~~
scripts/deploy/fullV2Setup.ts:112:46 - error TS2554: Expected 0-1 arguments, but got 2.

112     .then(f => f.deploy(thirdwebFee.address, options))
                                                 ~~~~~~~
scripts/deploy/fullV2Setup.ts:121:46 - error TS2554: Expected 0-1 arguments, but got 2.

121     .then(f => f.deploy(thirdwebFee.address, options))
                                                 ~~~~~~~
scripts/deploy/fullV2Setup.ts:129:46 - error TS2554: Expected 0-1 arguments, but got 2.

129     .then(f => f.deploy(thirdwebFee.address, options))
                                                 ~~~~~~~
scripts/deploy/fullV2Setup.ts:137:99 - error TS2554: Expected 1-2 arguments, but got 3.
```
![image](https://github.com/thirdweb-dev/contracts/assets/7599190/609923e8-ab29-405b-bc49-b43e367ab0f1)


deploy  bug

when i test the contract, i receive out of gas error, is this a design strategy or a flaw

out of gas error

yall don't have a wager smart contract ..? 

Suggestion 

Hei there, i have try library and got some issue about this, please fix it.

ERC721AVirtualApproveUpgradeable => Identifier not found or not unique => AddressData

instead of require, why not just use custom errors, beside more gas would have been saved using yul

optimizations

Hi, I was going through the docs on overriding the default claim condition of the NFT Drop contract. After reading your [blog post](https://blog.thirdweb.com/announcing-improved-claim-conditions/) and the [docs](https://portal.thirdweb.com/react/react.usesetclaimconditions#snapshot), it appears that the `maxClaimable` is set in "wei" units, meaning if I define `maxClaimable` on an address to be `5`, and then I later call `useActiveClaimConditionForWallet` in my React app, the [`maxClaimablePerWallet`](https://portal.thirdweb.com/react/react.useactiveclaimconditionforwallet#return-value) of the React hook is `0.000000000000000005`.

I don't think this is the intent here. Anyways, it seemed like the only way to circumvent this issue is to just multiply my custom value by 10^18.

Issue with `maxClaimable` when overriding claim condition for wallets

Auth


genesis contracts in [contracts repo](https://github.com/maticnetwork/contracts)  seem to be deployed on matic's mainnet & testnet.
but, genesis contracts in [pos-portal]([contracts repo](https://github.com/maticnetwork/contracts) ) look better architected & implemented than that. what is the purpose of each of them?

Q: What is difference between this repo and maticnetwork/contracts repo?

This might sounds weird but..
Let's say I have a random number already generated and associated to my NFT in L1.
That number influences how tokenURI() is returned.
So I wanna make sure that my bridged NFT in L2 act the same.

-----

Looking at ERC721Predicate
https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/88dbf0a88fd68fa11f7a3b9d36629930f6b93a05/contracts/root/TokenPredicates/ERC721Predicate.sol#L74
It seems like ERC721Predicate.lockTokens() only assume that depositData are tokenId(s)

-----

I saw the ability to send meta data back from L2 -> L1 (here: https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/pull/67)
But not the other way around. Any suggestion? 🙏🏼

Passing NFT arbitrary data from L1 -> L2 ?

Token: AFTR
Token type
ERC20
Ethereum address
0x56dfa98f363edb99240b63f8a5141d8b64cfaf6e
Polygon address
0x228a22bf6da9353Abbe37a31cf85c02dfC432456
Decimals
8
Mintable
false

Want to change the address of my mapped token and redeploy with the following contract

Is there any documentation for deploying mintable ERC20 on both chains? 

My intuition of the procedure would be the following:
1. Deploy root/RootToken/DummyMintableERC20.sol on Ethereum
2. Deploy child/ChildToken/ChildMintableERC20.sol on Matic
3. Requesting mapping on https://mapper.matic.today/

However how is the rootChainManager supposed to mint tokens if it doesn't have the PREDICATE_ROLE? Shouldn't there be another PREDICATE_ROLE assignment in the constructor or is an additonal external call needed?

PREDICATE_ROLE assignment missing in root/RootToken/DummyMintableERC20.sol? Deployment documentation needed.

ignore

Reentrancy in [NetworkAgnostic.executeMetaTransaction(address,bytes,bytes32,bytes32,uint8)](https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/crytic/contracts/common/NetworkAgnostic.sol#L37-L65):
	External calls:
	- [(success,returnData) = address(this).call(abi.encodePacked(functionSignature,userAddress))](https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/crytic/contracts/common/NetworkAgnostic.sol#L54-L56)
	State variables written after the call(s):
	- [nonces[userAddress] = nonces[userAddress].add(1)](https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/crytic/contracts/common/NetworkAgnostic.sol#L58)

Apply the [check-effects-interactions pattern](http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/v0.4.21/security-considerations.html#re-entrancy).

Reentrancy in NetworkAgnostic.executeMetaTransaction

Hello, I am having problems to make EIP3009 from usdc polygon pos to work and it seems it uses the contracts from this repo.

It seems the EIP712 is wrong implemented: https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/master/contracts/common/EIP712Base.sol#L36

First, the order from the domain separator should be in the order they give you here: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-712

Moreover the calculation of the `EIP712_DOMAIN_TYPEHASH` is wrong. We are using `salt` but we are not encoding any salt at all. `EIP712Domain(string name,string version,address verifyingContract,bytes32 salt)` this gives problems when you want to calculate the signature with standards like signTypedData from metamask.



Wrong implementation of the EIP712 signatures

https://wallet.1inch.io/send/0x042c4fA87216D9d8c05dCa9D4e7d433FE4E5d323@137?value=1E20![qr.png](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/84179933/221163057-3c03f8fb-88af-493a-88eb-223f43b848a8.png
Chào 

https://goonus.io/markets/MATIC/?slug=cong-ty-game-square-enix-hop-tac-voi-polygon-de-ra-mat-du-an-nghe-thuat-nft

Chia sẻ

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.mona.android

Xem "Crypto.com - Mua BTC, ETH"

![image_share.png](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/84179933/216772165-ae9501de-334d-4a93-8a17-a6ec870bfb28.png)



![image_share.png](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/84179933/216444153-c2614a7e-ee91-4f90-b60d-c22c6e5a1f.png)



Hey guys, im new to the whole debugging .Sol so forgive me if im wrong rsrsr :) 
but was checking this contract's code today and got the feeling that the code could be incorrectly allowing the `ChildChainManager` to withdraw funds on behalf of users
without their permission. The issue is in the deposit function, where the withdrawnTokens mapping is being set to false
for each deposited token, but this value is never checked again before the tokens are withdrawn in the `withdrawBatch`
function.

To fix this issue, the `withdrawBatch` function should check the `withdrawnTokens` mapping before allowing the tokens to
be withdrawn. For example, the code could be changed to this:

```solidity

    function withdrawBatch(uint256[] calldata tokenIds) external {
        require(_msgSender() == _getCaller(), "ChildMintableERC721: INVALID_CALLER");

        // limit batching of tokens due to gas limit restrictions
        require(tokenIds.length <= BATCH_LIMIT, "ChildMintableERC721: BATCH_LIMIT_EXCEEDED");

        for (uint256 i = 0; i < tokenIds.length; i++) {
            uint256 tokenId = tokenIds[i];
            require(_hasToken(tokenId), "ChildMintableERC721: TOKEN_NOT_FOUND");

            // check if the token has already been withdrawn
            require(!withdrawnTokens[tokenId], "ChildMintableERC721: TOKEN_ALREADY_WITHDRAWN");

            withdrawnTokens[tokenId] = true;
            _burn(tokenId);
        }

        emit WithdrawnBatch(_msgSender(), tokenIds);
    }
```


best of Luck to Yall :) 

Validate Permission Before BatchWithdraw 

I have several questions on Polygon mintable assets, based on the templates in this repository:

https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/master/flat/ChildMintableERC20.sol
https://github.com/maticnetwork/pos-portal/blob/master/flat/DummyMintableERC20.sol

The documentation [here](https://docs.polygon.technology/docs/develop/ethereum-polygon/mintable-assets) does not address these questions.

(1) Should the name (ticker) of the token on the Polygon network be the same as the name of the token on Ethereum mainnet? So if my Ethereum ERC20 token is called XYZ, should the Polygon version be called just XYZ, or should it be called wXYZ?

(2) Why does the `ChildMintableERC20.withdraw`​ function have no access controls? I realize if a user calls this, it will only lose them tokens, but shouldn't you limit access to calling this function to only a Polygon router? Otherwise maybe a user can burn tokens early, which will make the router fail when trying to move tokens between chains. Who knows, it could trigger some security vulnerability. All router-specific functions should be locked down and limited so that only the router can call them.

(3) Why does the `ChildMintableERC20.deposit` function take an argument `bytes calldata depositData​`, which has to be decoded through `abi.decode`​? Why isn't the parameter decoded before it is passed to this function?

(4) Why does the mint​ function require the role `DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE​`, while deposit​ requires `DEPOSITOR_ROLE`​? In practice, is it only one router contract that has both roles? Your [documentation on mintable assets](https://docs.polygon.technology/docs/develop/ethereum-polygon/mintable-assets) does not talk about what the `DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE​` role is, or which router contract should be assigned this role.

(5) Your contract `DummyMintableERC20`​ has a function `mint(address user, uint256 amount)`​ which has the same signature as the function of the same name in `ChildMintableERC20`​. However, the former takes role `PREDICATE_ROLE`​ and the latter takes role `DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE`​. If I want to deploy the same exact contract to Ethereum mainnet and Polygon, does this mean this function needs to be callable by two different contracts, one for each of the two roles?

Questions on Polygon mintable assets

Some operations require us to track `NewHeaderBlock` event of `RootChain` contracts. That is possible to do. However, the functionality can not be verified in the test environment because `MockCheckpointManger` doesn't emit this event.

Please add this event to `ICheckpointManager` and emit it inside `MockCheckpointManager#setCheckpoint` to make it more consistent with `RootChain` contract.

Add NewHeaderBlock event to MockCheckpointManager and ICheckpointManager

Reproduction:

1. Go to https://web3modal.com/ click on Connect Wallet button
2. Try to scan the QR code with AlphaWallet
3. Nothing happens, the QR code just does not get scanned no matter how long I hold the camera to the code

Dark mode QR code example:
<img width="377" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18564130/218582183-e7a8c98f-35cd-4902-bcab-77177a4888f7.png">


Can't scan WalletConnect v2 QR code in dark mode

For transactions other than a raw base token transfer (eg send 0.1 eth to Bob), there's a payload. Currently we use a system that detects common transactions but it isn't very good.

Refactor the TransactionDetailWidget:

Or more accurately refactor ```Transaction.decoder.decodeInput```.

Use this online API:

https://www.4byte.directory/api/v1/signatures/?hex_signature=0x12345678

eg a ```balanceOf(address 0xa20efc4b9537d27acfd052003e311f762620642d)```  call would look like this:

0x70a08231000000000000000000000000a20efc4b9537d27acfd052003e311f762620642d

you take the first 4 bytes: 0x70a08231 and look up what function it is:

https://www.4byte.directory/api/v1/signatures/?hex_signature=0x70a08231

To get the JSON dump. Always use the numerically lowest id on the list; this will almost always be correct. The id seems to be the count value of when the function was added into the database.

Notice that you can then use part of ```Transaction.decoder.decodeInput``` to decode the inputs.

In TransactionDecoder there's a function ```setFunction```. We can use the input from 4byte.directory instead of the lookup in ```setupKnownFunctions()```. Everything else in TransactionDecoder would work as previous.

This would help a lot for the user seeing what they're signing. It's not as good as the transaction simulator APIs but would still probably be used even when we do implement it.

Improve Transaction signing display

Remove ARTIS sigma1 and ARTIS tau1 since they are dead

Like Remix does. Usually contract authors will include a failure message if a 'require' in the Solidity fails, if this message seen we should show it to the user as the reason why the transaction will fail.

Need to modify the estimate function, probably make this:

```
public Single<BigInteger> calculateGasEstimate(byte[] transactionBytes, long chainId, String toAddress,
                                                   BigInteger amount, Wallet wallet, final BigInteger defaultLimit)
```

into ```Single<Pair<BigInteger, String>> calculateGasEstimate(byte[] transactionBytes, long chainId, String toAddress,
                                                   BigInteger amount, Wallet wallet, final BigInteger defaultLimit)```

Where the String will return the error message from the ```EthEstimateGas``` object, ```estimate.getError().getMessage()```. 

Propagate that back down though to all the dialog warnings, and display the error on those warning dialog boxes instead of the generic 'transaction will fail' popup.

Any team can pick up this task, if have exhausted task stack or needing a break

Free for all

Add the reason for transaction failure to the "fail notification" dialog popup

To include #3217 . `master` branch (at anytime from now for simplicity, the Android code changes that is more active is unlikely to affect the DMZ service)

Similar to how it was done for #2679

---

Can verify deployment success by visiting https://aw.app/wc and comparing with the before/after screenshots in first comment of #3217


Redeploy DMZ service

1. Change wallet from the one which the target token is on.
2. Use the shortcut, it should work
3. Page out of AW (but don't remove the process)
4. Use the shortcut again
5. Key unlock will fail

Token shortcut fails

It should be caused by updating item_asset_image.xml

avatar_progress_spinner is placed in RelativeLayout and RelativeLayout is hidden by default

But the setWaiting and finishWaiting methods in UserAvatar have not been updated, and only show and hide the avatar_progress_spinner

InputAddress does not display ProgressBar after entering ens

See this NFT on Sepolia: 0xC280500a0504F548ca561cfEC11C8b00f1BB4Bd8

Check the "DerivativeKey_1" token's Attributes. The dates don't fit into the attribute boxes but I want to see the full value (you may need to refresh the metadata to see the correct attributes).

"Tooltip" for long attribute values

There are 2 options:

A1. Create a new branch and add the functionality
B1. Create a new branch and strip down the app to 0

Either way, this is not meant to be merged into `master`. Our backend developers will build this branch themselves for testing

Functionality:

A. Use Firebase
B. TextBox to support entering a wallet address
C. A button to request for push notification permissions (should always re-try if tapped)
D. That button should also register with our backend API. Ought to be simple POST-type call (details pending) passing in the address+device push token
E. When a remote push is received, display the entire JSON payload. The remote push notification is supposed to be a silent notification — so when we receive it while the app is active: display the JSON. If the app is inactive: show a pop up notification with the JSON. Either way, we should indicate if it is from a silent push or not.
F. A button top undo (C) by making a different call

High Priority

Create a fork/branch to help test remote push notifications

Some NFTs are cut off abruptly

![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17334718/231999224-a96dbcd1-ebb0-4f89-8389-9b54e69a3e56.png)


Webview-rendered NFTs not displaying properly

If the format matches, extract the `uri` value and handle it the same way as we do for "wc:" currently.

Example (this example is with the v1 URL embedded, v2 works the same way), launching this in an Android browser:

`awallet://wc?uri=wc%3A5f577f99-2f54-40f7-9463-7ff640772090%401%3Fbridge%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwalletconnect.depay.com%26key%3D1938aa2c9d4104c91cbc60e94631cf769c96ebad1ea2fc30e18ba09e39bc3c0b`

Should be equivalent to launching this:

`wc:5f577f99-2f54-40f7-9463-7ff640772090@1?bridge=https%3A%2F%2Fwalletconnect.depay.com&key=1938aa2c9d4104c91cbc60e94631cf769c96ebad1ea2fc30e18ba09e39bc3c0b`

For reference, this would be similar to how our deeplink (https://aw.app/openurl?url=<MagicLink>) is used to embed a MagicLink representing an SL pass.


Support `awallet://wc?uri=wc%3Axxx` in addition to `wc:` making them do the same thing

Two issues I found here,

1. Open scan page from Wallet tab, when camera is opened press back "Invalid scan result" toast is shown. Now again click scan button and scan a valid QR code. The bottomsheet dialog with options shows up but with same error message toast "Invalid scan result".

https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/32137513/e1846f66-17c6-4857-9b3e-0896185f1c2a



2. When I scan a valid qr code from wallet page and dismiss the bottomsheet dialog manually, if I minimise the app and again try to resume the app same dialog opens up again.

https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/32137513/129e0775-01c7-4170-90e7-4f415d775028




Wallet tab Scan option issue

hello Guys 

i m trying to connect alpha wallet with wallect connect , my code let me connect with metamask and trust wallet but its not allow me to connect with alpha  wallet .

pop open when we click on approve then its says all event must approve 

![MicrosoftTeams-image (3)](https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/74611973/1f57424e-4b29-4dd1-85eb-cf9bf711fd19)
![MicrosoftTeams-image (5)](https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/74611973/3341d113-d239-41dd-8e22-db9aff3f1056)

![MicrosoftTeams-image (4)](https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/74611973/9c6695fb-fd5e-4cd2-aade-3207c8279d69)


Alpha wallet issue with wallet connect 

Why we tested several phones and we experienced lagging slow when scrolling inside the browser? We tested multiple website yahoo.com and other sites and still showing same issue. Thank you

Browser scroll lagging

Error not sending 

We are trying to integrate wallet connect v2 with Alpha wallet. Our react native dapp redirects to web browser even though updated alpha wallet is installed on device.

Error message on web browser:
If you are using AlphaWallet with WalletConnect and facing issues please take the following steps:

Try using WalletConnect V2 (or latest version)
Try launching the application from within AlphaWallet app's Browser tab.

Wallet connect v2 is not working

> AlphaWallet‘s EIP712 signing on WalletConnect v2 is broken everywhere (on v1 it works).

https://twitter.com/timdaub/status/1673591412045103104?s=20

WalletConnect v2 + EIP-712 signing

I have wallets with alpha and can't transfer buy or sell and my verification method will not proceed. I need this to be resolved hopefully easier then it is getting help. I don't understand why there is so much trouble with this account
I really need action on the matters
Thanks 
DAVID
5595691356


Trouble with Ramp and error Code 

How to locked custom token from CustomSettingsView? the user cannot delete either of them.

![Screenshot_20230613-084731-picsay](https://github.com/AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android/assets/8003180/8bd20a1d-6dab-47f3-babf-a4db262c8dd2)


Lock token list in home (user can't delete token list)

hello i want to change binance bep20 logo from where i can change a chain logo .. 

change bnb logo 

As we are facing resource overload, we need to turn off the IPFS node for some time. For that we'll temporarily outsource the pinning externally. The downside will be, we won't be able to update the IPNS for a while with newly verified contracts, but we will pin the newly verified contracts separately.

## Preliminary
Do these before starting the rest:
### 1. Persist the data 
- [x] Persist the `.ipfs` folder and do not necessarily do a complete `ipfs add` when the ipfs container starts running. This is actually long overdue, and will make sure we can pick up where we left, in case something goes wrong in the next steps, and have to turn on the ipfs-server again.
### 2. Check performance increase
- [x] See if the server gets relief turning off IPFS nodes

## Server
  - [x] Create external pinning service account
  - We probably need to first copy the `.ipfs` folder before shutting down the container, or is there a way to persist it on the go. I.e. will those files vanish if we change the `ipfs.yaml` and restart the container? 
### Migrating the pinning 
- [x] Pin everything on an external pinning service. We have several options:
  - If it is possible to do an `ipfs add` via `scp` etc. such that the process will run on another host but the files will be pulled from the server machine. This will not consume extra resources on the server and we don't need to copy everything.
  - Directly provide the CID to the pinning service and it will pull from the local node. This will use resources from the local node and we won't be able to turn it off at the time. But we can't turn off the node until everything gets pinned anyway.
    - Maybe test pinning from the node and see how many resources it takes. Make sure we can cancel pinning otherwise we'll just end up pinning everything without being able to test and stop.
  - Copy the files directly from the server or from S3 to another computer and push to pin from there.
    - See if we can do this with a script, or directly running a node with `ipfs add` with external pinning `ipfs pin remote add --service=estuary $rootHash --background --name=$pinName`

### Migrating the IPNS
- [x] See if we can still provide the IPNS temporarily via an external provider. For the IPNS to resolve, we have to run our node with the keys. Or maybe there's a way to publish the public key --> CID mapping once and then the node can go offline?

### Changing how we pin in the server
- [x] Change the pinning in the current server to not place files under MFS but to pin them directly in the external pinning.

### Finally
- [x] Check if everything works and turn off the ipfs-server.

## Gateway
- [x] Also replace the local gateway with an external gateway. The ipfs-gateway is also consuming quite a lot of resources and we should outsource this temporarily too.
  - Optionally, first check from the IPFS Web UI, how much bandwidth it consumed to get an estimation of costs. If the Web UI is available.

Stop temporarily running IPFS nodes and pin externally

`/home/data/solc-bin/soljson/soljson-v0.4.16-nightly.2017.8.11+commit.c84de7fa.js`

Server crash on nightly `soljson-v0.4.16-nightly.2017.8.11+commit.c84de7fa`

It makes sense that Sourcify is conservative with the chains that are monitored, because of resource limitations and costs.

It would be nice if third parties could run the monitor for other chains themselves. In theory, if the monitor interacts with the Sourcify server via the normal public API, this should work and not require any trust of the parties running the monitor.

Has anyone explored this mode of operation before? How does the communication between the monitor and server work currently?

Running the monitor externally

Recently we changed how the compiler is called from a Sync call to an Async call. If too many concurrent compilations are called the server crashes silently.

Too many concurrent verifications crash the server

Since we can comfortably verify contracts with immutables, update the Immutables section in docs.

I'd keep the page for the information purposes but maybe make the old content collapse/hideable. Clearly state at the top that this is not a problem anymore. 

documentation

[docs]: Update Immutables docs

With https://github.com/ethereum/sourcify/pull/946 we fixed being rate limited by the ipfs.io public gw, and tests failing because of this.

However this causes the tests to take longer from ~5m to ~9m now. This might be because it takes longer to connect through the local ipfs gateway.

We might be able to speed this up by adding default peers to the created ipfs instance. Investigate what causes much longer times and try if this makes a difference.

enhancement

low-priority

tests

ipfs

Pass default peers for faster IPFS gateway connection in tests

As laid out in https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/14361 it seems different compiler builds can output different bytecodes when the IR is used for compilation.

The builds that produce different bytecode are 
- Emscripten and macOS (built with Clang)
vs
- Linux (built with GCC)

For this, we need to double-check with the Emscripten build when the verification fails for a contract that uses `viaIR` and pre `0.8.21`. 

Use the test case in the above issue

Handle bytecode difference for different solc builds with `viaIR` in Solidity pre `v0.8.21`

We are currently running the compilation in a sync child process which is blocking the whole event loop. This is extremely inefficient. 

https://github.com/ethereum/sourcify/blob/a9967a2e914e452779962b705e595a5c1696c1bc/packages/lib-sourcify/src/lib/solidityCompiler.ts#L53-L56

Instead, we should do it async. Started a branch for this. https://github.com/ethereum/sourcify/tree/async-compiler-process

However, since this branch of compilation only runs when there's a platform binary but our Apple M1 machines don't have a suitable binary and always run solc-js. We need to do the development on a Linux machine to develop easier. 

Making platform binary compilation async

- Concern raised by: https://twitter.com/alexberegszaszi/status/1428699640480899076
- Piece of code responsible for this behavior: https://github.com/ethereum/sourcify/blob/462e238f55191fed794bcab742fe36ad73049500/services/verification/src/services/Injector.ts#L492
- This is performed before saving a source file to the repository
- Actual file names are preserved in the metadata file
- Investigate current repo state and write a script to revert all "@" signs

Gathering issues that would require a whole repository review under this milestone. These issues should be handled together as they might cause changes in the repository content and structure. The structure I'd say unlikely because we don't want to change the API to the repo but we might need to correct some contracts.

Whole repo review

Don't replace "@" when sanitizing paths

If you invoke `useCompiler` two times in a row with the same input, the resulting deployed bytecode is different. This makes verifications fail because the standard pattern is to first compile the sources to get some metadata and then recompile and check the output based on that metadata.

The on-the-blockchain version of the bytecode is the result from the first invocation.

I've observed this on a contract made with solc v0.1.5 with the optimizer enabled. I am not sure if this also happens on other contracts or for other versions of Solidity. This could even be a solc-js problem...

Full example you can run: https://github.com/sealer3/usecompiler-inconsistency

For the same input, useCompiler generates different bytecode

Enviar ami correo toda información Demi gethup a anajeandoemortesson750116@gmail.com para corregir no es Jasson...es Jeansofiacelia o Celiaparra 

ASH SHA256key null true


`@ethereum-sourcify/lib-sourcify: Aborting request https://github.com/ethereum/solc-bin/raw/gh-pages/linux-amd64/solc-linux-amd64-v0.8.19%2Bcommit.7dd6d404 because of timout 10000`

Tests are failing because it takes too long to get the compiler (in the example above more than 10 seconds)

Fetching the compiler from GitHub takes a long time

Normally when compiling a contract we first try to fetch the platform binary (`linux-amd` etc.) from the solc-bin repo and if that fails we try Emscripten. 

There's no need to try this for most of the cases anyway because the nightlies and pre-`0.4.10` platform binaries are not available anyway: https://github.com/ethereum/solc-bin/tree/gh-pages/linux-amd64

So for those instead directly ask the Emscripten compiler.

[lib-sourcify]: Don't request nightlies and earlier version platform binaries 

server.yaml specifies that the server container sees the repository at a hardcoded path (`/home/data/repository`) which is mounted on the host file system at the location provided by the `$REPOSITORY_PATH` env variable.

However, it seems that the server uses the value of `process.env.REPOSITORY_PATH` as its internal path and never uses `/home/data/repository`. So the only way for the server to work is when the value of `$REPOSITORY_PATH` matches (either relatively or absolutely) `/home/data/repository`, which is confusing.


$REPOSITORY_PATH value always has to match /home/data/repository

On the end-to-end test https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/ethereum/sourcify/4604/workflows/2acb4101-bcc9-4664-a027-f39c5409f573/jobs/25896 the deployed contract has returned a partial hash. 

This is indeed true as the metadata hash of the deployed contract seems to be different than usual.

Perfect match (`0x5e465d5345695380368e7bcec3444Cdf4e404783` on Goerli) vs Partial `0xb2Ce053A0dc72B5C8a283fdFf11dc0Fe330aaB6D` on Sepolia.
```
a264697066735822122008afcc4e79a78af494b58a6191acb153a3e09e9c32ded98aa0c66718a6459aca64736f6c63430006020033
```
```
a26469706673582212207f04acb3539466f3d6377bfe387e7523ebcbc6aabb97eaf97370c0d6eac21fe864736f6c63430006020033
```

We should examine why this is the case as this might be something that affects contracts deployed with Hardhat in general. 

Partial match on e2e tests

![image](https://github.com/ethereum/sourcify/assets/13069972/36856544-3ea6-48a9-80f8-9bc5a2b21cf9)

This happens when the server **container** returns a 502 or another response that is not a JSON. 

For the responses we need to check if the status is `200`. This likely did not come up when developing because the development environment does not happen in a container and the unparsable response is sent by the nginx.

[ui] shows JSON parse error when the server returns non `200` response

Tracker issue for the feature "Standalone Monitor"

# Standalone Monitor

Mentioned in #1098 

## Goal
Currently, the monitor is coded in a way that it hooks into the `verificationService` and `repositoryService` directly, which means it can only run on the same machine as the server. 

At the same time, we only run a monitor for a handful of chains, as our resources are limited. But with this setting, it is not possible for people to run their own monitor, as it can’t hand contracts to the Sourcify server. For a supported chain, an external party should be able to voluntarily run a monitor, listen to their chain(s) of choice for new contracts, assemble a contract, and send it to the Sourcify server for verification. The server will then compile and verify. The verification will highly likely succeed and certainly be a full match, as everything was already assembled from the metadata IPFS hash.


## The flow
Roughly the flow will be like this:

- A `ChainMonitor` will listen to a chain for new contract deployments
- When a new contract is detected, try to “assemble” a contract
    - Get the contract runtime bytecode
    - Does the bytecode have a CBOR field?
    - Is there a metadata hash in the CBOR field?
- Try to fetch the metadata from IPFS/Swarm
    - Since Swarm doesn’t seem to work, if it’s swarm, stop
    - Fetching with something around 15 times with 1 min intervals is reasonable
- If the metadata hash is found check the sources
    - If the source is not inline try to fetch from the `urls`
        - For the IPFS hash, fetch 15 times with 1 min interval
    - Check if `keccak256` matches with the fetched or inline source
- If all sources are fetched send the metadata + source files + chainId + address to the Sourcify server
    - can be [[sourcify.dev](http://sourcify.dev/)](http://sourcify.dev) or another custom Sourcify server URL.

In this case a `Monitor` would need these inputs:

```js
new Monitor(
  // SourceFetchers
  {
    ipfs: {
      enabled: true,
      gateways: ["localhost:5050/ipfs/", "ipfs.io/ipfs/"],
    },
    swarm: {
      enabled: false,
    },
  },
  // Minimal SourcifyChain(s)
  [
    { chainId: 5, rpc: ["goerli-rpc.net"] },
    { chainId: 11155111, rpc: ["sepolia.dev"] },
  ],
  // Sourcify server URL(s)?
  ["https://sourcify.dev/server/",... ,"mycustomsourcify.com/server/"]
);

```

## Questions/Thoughts

- Do we want to run a separate monitor instance for each chain (separate process/container), or want to run a single monitor for multiple chains.
    - In the latter, should we consider multithreading or is it not really needed?
- Do we want to be able to run a monitor from a custom block?
    - If that’s the case we need to check if the RPC can go as back as that block
        - Maybe can we ask the RPC how far back it can go?
    - Also it makes no sense to go back longer than when the metadata feature was introduced to Solidity
- Either add a property to mark the RPCs supporting traces, or find a way to check that during initialization, like trying the RPC and checking the response.
- When the `ChainMonitor` looks for new contract deployments, how do we catch the contracts created by other contracts?
    - traces

TRACKER_ISSUE

Standalone Monitor

https://docs.estuary.tech/Reference/SwaggerUI

Embed the Swagger UI inside docs page instead of linking

Use Blockscout APIs instead of scraping

Today after the machine started I noticed the logs in Grafana are gone. We are normally persisting the logs in Loki and Prometheus container logs but for they were gone for some reason. We need to double check the log persistance

Grafana logs deleted when restarted

web3-utils@1.2.2 uses vulnerable underscore@1.9.1
an update to at least web3-utils@1.3.6 is needed to fix this

https://snyk.io/test/npm/web3-utils/1.2.2
https://snyk.io/test/npm/web3-utils/1.3.6

underscore high severity vulnerability

hi
Sent
how to events
i use ethers
I would like to know the events of going long, short, and closing positions, is there sample code anywhere?



how to events #1

Hello!

This question is meant primarily for @zyzek, since the version of [Proxy.sol](https://github.com/Synthetixio/synthetix/blob/develop/contracts/Proxy.sol) I am looking at is attributed to him, though I'm happy to take answers from anyone else who contributed to the contract in question.

Brief background: I am a graduate student and smart contract security researcher at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. My current research is focused specifically on upgradeable proxy contracts, and I've come across this proxy from Synthetix several times in the data set we're using in our analysis. I've been using a modified version of [Slither](https://github.com/crytic/slither) to extract proxy features related to security and safety concerns.

The feature which this question is about is the presence or absence of compatibility checks when updating the target address. Below are a few examples of compatibility checks from other proxy patterns, to give you a sense of what we're looking for.
```solidity
// From an EIP-1967 proxy:
require(OpenZeppelinUpgradesAddress.isContract(newImplementation), 
        "Cannot set a proxy implementation to a non-contract address");
```
```solidity
// From an EIP-1822 (UUPS) proxy:
require(
        bytes32(
            0xc5f16f0fcc639fa48a6947836d9850f504798523bf8c9a3a87d5876cf622bcf7
        ) == Proxiable(newAddress).proxiableUUID(),
        "Not compatible"
    );
```
Now, when looking at the Synthetix proxy, I initially wasn't sure if the `setTarget` function below should be flagged as having a compatibility check, due to its signature which specifies a contract type for the `_target` parameter:
```solidity
function setTarget(Proxyable _target)
    external
    onlyOwner
{
    target = _target;
    emit TargetUpdated(_target);
}
```
I wasn't sure if the EVM would perform any type checking on the argument passed in, though I did search the Solidity language docs and learned that the ABI for this function would be converted to `setTarget(address)`. So I did a quick experiment by deploying the proxy contract to a local VM using Remix, and discovered that **I could in fact set the target to a non-contract address, meaning there is no type checking**.

So, my question is: was this contract developed under the assumption that _only a contract inheriting_ `Proxyable` _could be passed into_ `setTarget(Proxyable _target)` _without triggering an execution error?_ In other words, is this a _failed compatibility check?_ Or did you already know the EVM would not perform type checking, and just didn't feel the need to confirm that it is in fact compatible (i.e., missing a check rather than checking incorrectly)?

Of course, this target setter is protected with an `onlyOwner` modifier, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the owner knows better than to set the target to an incompatible address. But my professor said to operate under the assumption that this was intended to be a compatibility check but fails to do so, and I want to make sure we're not reading too much into this function signature.

Thank you for your time!
William E Bodell III
WEBthe3rd.eth

P.s. Anton, we have a few connections in common! Way back in 2017, I joined a hackathon team at Consensus in NYC with Tim Bass and Sam Brooks, along with Lucas Cullen and Nick Addison. My new Aussie friends and I ended up winning the hackathon and taking home two additional prizes. If you're still in touch with them, let them know that Bill with the Ethereum tattoo says hi!

Research question regarding Proxy.sol

Public keeper function _freezeRate(bytes32 currencyKey) external_ may have typos at line **202** and **203**, change inverse.frozenAtUpperLimit = (rate == inverse.upperLimit); to inverse.frozenAtUpperLimit = (rate >= inverse.upperLimit) ?

potential typos in exchangeRates Contract

History,

When i run this command `node publish deploy -n local -d publish/deployed/local -g 8 -h` to deploy to my local blockchain in my windows machine, i this error below

> TypeError: Cannot read property 'SafeDecimalMath' of undefined

  - Deployer.js:178 Deployer._deploy
    C:/pathToMyDirectory/synthetix/publish/src/Deployer.js:178:34        

  - Deployer.js:410 Deployer.deployContract
    C:/pathToMyDirectory/synthetix/publish/src/Deployer.js:410:39        

  - deploy-core.js:21 module.exports
    C:/pathToMyDirectory/synthetix/publish/src/commands/deploy/deploy-cor    e.js:21:17

  - index.js:287 deploy
    C:/pathToMyDirectory/synthetix/publish/src/commands/deploy/index.js:2    87:8

  - task_queues.js:93 processTicksAndRejections
    internal/process/task_queues.js:93:5

  - index.js:562 async Command.<anonymous>
    C:/pathToMyDirectory/synthetix/publish/src/commands/deploy/index.js:5    62:6


Unable to deploy synthetix smart contract on local blockchain

https://github.com/Synthetixio/synthetix/blob/a1786e5d64b5b51212785ade6d8b42435f69c387/test/contracts/StakingRewards.js#L584

https://github.com/Synthetixio/synthetix/blob/b7f93c78dbf7057b8889a16a3227bc1a0588d687/contracts/StakingRewards.sol#L114
`rewardRate` can only changed by `notifyRewardAmount`?

Analyze open-source projects

Just paste the link to GitHub repo and we'll generate a report for you

Previously analyzed projects

highlight/highlight

thirdweb-dev/contracts

maticnetwork/pos-portal

AlphaWallet/alpha-wallet-android

ethereum/sourcify

Synthetixio/synthetix

smartcontractkit/chainlink

OriginProtocol/origin-dollar

coral-xyz/backpack

paritytech/polkadot

storj/storj

graphprotocol/graph-node

EddieHubCommunity/LinkFree

chakra-ui/chakra-ui

getsentry/sentry-laravel