jxom pfp

jxom

@jxom

50 Following
24325 Followers
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
"impossible to build" ... hold my beer.
0 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
yeah, we will probably update the docs to make this more obvious at some point. (fun fact: viem was originally designed this way, but then a large majority of folks wanted the client extension DX!)
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Analyzer probably isn't tree-shaking properly. I get 61kB on my repro with your imports (screenshot 1). If you're really worried about bundle size, you can also use tree-shakable actions with `createClient` (screenshot 2): https://viem.sh/docs/clients/custom#tree-shaking
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Tell fucory to cut Viem some slack! Their owners are called Wevm, and that ends with -evm. Do you think that’s good enough? Or should we rename Viem to Vievm?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
legend
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
merged
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
what is a performant PQ scheme with a tiny sig/pubkey size that viem could use?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
how can i generate a signing key with a post-quantum slh-dsa scheme and attach it to an account using viem?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
haven’t really used them! i’ll need to check them out.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
:)
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Maybe the RPC Provider or Node isn't returning the error code in the JSON-RPC error response.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
It shouldn’t. Do you have a code snippet?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
debugging 4337 is an actual pain in the ass 🤣
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Got it. I’d just use `sendTransaction` or `call` directly for that case.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Makes sense! Can take a look this weekend to widen the type. You can workaround for now by doing: const hash = client.readContract({ address: '0x...', abi, functionName: '0xdeadbeef' as any }) This should work as internally our ABI Function encoding/decoding utils accept selectors as names.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Yeah, resolving via the L1 is the best approach so you don't need branching logic for L2 resolvers.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
Will merge soon!
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
i just write them
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
That was a "Third Party Integration" page :P This is the "Account Abstraction" sub-docs for Viem's built-in AA.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jxom pfp
jxom
@jxom
big fan of daimo
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions