ui: incorrect fee displayed for user-prompt action to bump fees
I've noticed there is a typo with displaying "old fee" in UI when user action to bump fees shows up,
I wrote some code to address that - https://github.com/norwnd/dcrdex/pull/25/commits/adb94384a8e0d00f56b6a5b79b3acdd744b3289e - but there are also other adjustments in there that are probably useful to consider (I've dug into different "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios while at it and fixed a bunch of issues in there too), feel free to borrow whatever code you want.
Thank you for your useful testing and involvement. May I ask you if you have any links for "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios that you found useful. Thanks in advance.
May I ask you if you have any links for "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios that you found useful. Thanks in advance.
I'll point out couple off the top of my head, I guess the get them all you'd need to study the code in the commit I've linked above (and the summary below might not be 100% correct, but it's what I found to work "better than what's currently in master"):
- incorrect fee displayed (which this issue is about) is fixed
- user action(s) seem to be requested either 1 time at most, or just way too rarely (maybe with 2h delays between them or something like that)
- Polygon fee bump does not work sometimes if we don't bump tip part (which current master code doesn't really do and rather leaves it to chance)
- New Fee shown to the user in UI (the fee bump he approves) is not "enforced", meaning user approves fees A while in fact he might actually get fees B that could end up being 2x, 3x or magnitudes higher
- user-configured MaxFee (wallet setting) isn't respected, that's outside of the scope of this issue/changes but the commit I've linked above (which is also based on prior changes I've made in my forked code) also addresses it for redeems
- the is no
Abandonoption for transaction that's stuck in current master (I think only certain transactions stuck for long time can be abandoned, but that doesn't cover all the use-cases well enough) - and I've also added some clarifying comments/logs
to be fair, I haven't done extensive testing for this change of mine ^ but I will test it out some more over time and fix the rough edges if any are left - but regardless it's clear to me all those things I've listed above need to be addressed for fee-bump mechanism to be useful