-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 497
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No time out without manual page refreshing during safe creation #1355
Comments
This is an unintended side-effect that was introduced with #1223. Good news is that it eventually times out after around 30 minutes or ~100 blocks which is probably the default value of the provider. So far I haven't found a way to overwrite that. A possible solution would be to still run the watcher and do a |
Been looking at this bug together with Usame and we think it can be addressed separate from the Release. Would it be acceptable to fix during next Sprint? @JagoFigueroa @liliya-soroka |
Sure señor! |
I looked through the ticket and reproduced it and do not like the current way we handle timeouts: Instead we should suggest to speed up the existing transaction or the retry button should reuse the last nonce, which is the same as "Speeding up" the transaction. I also find the text a bit misleading
Also: I find 6.5 minutes to be a quite short timeout. IMO Especially on mainnet it can quickly happen if gas prices fluctuate that a transaction sits pending for 30min+ What do you think? |
Agreed, we should not give the option to cancel or retry for a new transaction if the existing one times out. I will create a new ticket to rework this. |
Fixed in the #2878 |
Regression for the 1.2.0 release candidate
3. Hola team! For this ticket regarding timeouts on safe creation the expected result is shown to me after 6,5 minutes on the case that I reload the page:
but unfortunately on the case that I don't perform a manual page reload it will be stuck on this screen forever (I have waited for 20 minutes in chrome)
Originally posted by @JagoFigueroa in #1341 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: