Update instances of fromToken to resolve potential undefined errors

[bigboydiamonds]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved error handling in the transaction button to prevent potential issues when certain data is unavailable.
  • Enhanced safety checks in the Input Container to avoid null reference errors.
  • Adjusted handling of token properties in the State Managed Bridge for better reliability.
  • Updated the updater to safely access token properties, enhancing stability.

462f05d930b07df1efbd11d9a977579d8a65f285: synapse-interface preview link

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes primarily focus on enhancing the code's robustness by introducing optional chaining (?.) when accessing the decimals property of fromToken across multiple files. This ensures the code handles potential null or undefined scenarios gracefully, preventing null reference errors.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
.../BridgeTransactionButton.tsx	Added safe navigation operator when accessing decimals property of fromToken to prevent potential null or undefined errors.
.../InputContainer.tsx	Modified conditional checks to use optional chaining for fromToken to avoid null reference errors.
.../state-managed-bridge/index.tsx	Adjusted handling of fromToken and toToken properties, ensuring their existence before accessing nested properties. Updated toast messages to use fromToken?.symbol.
.../slices/bridge/updater.tsx	Introduced optional chaining when accessing decimals property of fromToken for null safety.

Poem

🐇 Hopping through the code, with a swift and graceful stride,

On this day in history, with optional chaining by our side. 🍂

Null or undefined, no more a frightful tide,

With safe navigation, we now take in stride. 🌟

As the leaves of fall, in colors far and wide,

We celebrate these changes, with joy and pride. 🎉

So here's to robust code, and a smoother ride,

In the world of coding, where we all abide. 🌍

---

Tips

Chat with CodeRabbit Bot (@coderabbitai)

• If you reply to a review comment from CodeRabbit, the bot will automatically respond.
• To engage with CodeRabbit bot directly around the specific lines of code in the PR, mention @coderabbitai in your review comment
• Note: Review comments are made on code diffs or files, not on the PR overview.
• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.
• @coderabbitai resolve to resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.

Note: For conversation with the bot, please use the review comments on code diffs or files.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 2

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between f5c23ef and 843858d.

Files selected for processing (4)

• packages/synapse-interface/components/StateManagedBridge/BridgeTransactionButton.tsx (1 hunks)
• packages/synapse-interface/components/StateManagedBridge/InputContainer.tsx (2 hunks)
• packages/synapse-interface/pages/state-managed-bridge/index.tsx (9 hunks)
• packages/synapse-interface/slices/bridge/updater.tsx (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• packages/synapse-interface/slices/bridge/updater.tsx

Additional comments: 10

packages/synapse-interface/components/StateManagedBridge/BridgeTransactionButton.tsx (1)

• 80-81: The use of optional chaining (?.) here is a good practice to prevent potential null or undefined errors when accessing the decimals property of fromToken. This ensures that the code handles cases where fromToken or fromToken.decimals[fromChainId] might be null or undefined.

packages/synapse-interface/pages/state-managed-bridge/index.tsx (9)

• 134-140: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.decimals[fromChainId] is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 192-196: Again, the use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.decimals[fromChainId] is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 211-241: > Note: This review was outside of the patch, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [211-417]

The changes here are primarily focused on adding optional chaining (?.) and nullish coalescing (??) operators to prevent potential null reference errors. This is a good practice. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when these values are undefined or null. If these are valid states and don't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 278-286: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.decimals[fromChainId] is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 298-302: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.symbol is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 314-320: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.symbol is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 396-417: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.addresses[fromChainId as keyof Token['addresses']] is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 421-427: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.symbol is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

• 450-456: The use of optional chaining (?.) is a good practice to prevent potential null reference errors. However, it's important to ensure that the logic of the code still holds when fromToken?.symbol is undefined. If undefined is a valid state and doesn't break the logic, this is fine. Otherwise, you might want to add additional checks.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (32f7496) 51.23324% compared to head (843858d) 51.23324%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##              master       #1542   +/-   ##
=============================================
  Coverage   51.23324%   51.23324%           
=============================================
  Files            362         362           
  Lines          24691       24691           
  Branches         283         283           
=============================================
  Hits           12650       12650           
  Misses         10813       10813           
  Partials        1228        1228           

Flag	Coverage Δ
packages	91.00610% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.