It seems like something is missing in this sentence
On the JavaScript side we types data that we receive as event, removed no-op if statement checking for rescind and subscribed to event in push-handler.js
It seems like something is missing in this sentence
On the JavaScript side we types data that we receive as event, removed no-op if statement checking for rescind and subscribed to event in push-handler.js
Looks ok, but please make sure the types are correct.
Please make sure that the nullability is updated.
Requesting changes because there are a couple of small issues, but overall looks great!
Could you also include in the test plan a check if it updates the url correctly?
In D6182#185313, @przemek wrote:That's exactly the way we handle it on native. I thought that we would want to have some consistency between them. We also handle email-like, and not-alphanumeric usernames on submit (on web).
I like your idea, but I think we should go with this for now and create task to rewrite all those cases in the way that they block submit.
Looks great!
I'm really glad to see this logic written in a lot cleaner way!
Please don't forget to update the name (if you agree) before landing
Looks a lot better than the previous implementation!
We're really close!
rainbowkit and wagmi are a couple of months old - at some point we can consider updating them (maybe after the initial release?)
Have you followed this https://www.notion.so/commapp/How-to-revert-a-diff-dcdcd83a09b248b2a3e03372103786e9 guide? This should result in a summary that contains a hash of reverted commit, like e.g. in D6079.
In D6052#185065, @przemek wrote:Used scrollTo.
Added tests and run them.
There were some problems that I solved locally using fixes from here: https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-2654/problems-with-jest
I haven't pushed those fixes anywhere as it is to be discussed yet, but I found it acceptable to
push tests even if they fail currently (due to lack of mocks as mentioned on linear).
Similar thing is happening to tooltip-utils.test.js tests and it was ignored in the past I guess.
I don't think that handling this on submit is a good idea. We should do that earlier by disabling a login button.
Looks good to me! Added @ashoat as blocking to make sure that my idea about using this code version is ok.