Have a way to not produce a warning when explicitly passing in a placeholder value for `chainId` discovery about kwil-js

[KwilLuke]

Hey @pkoch,

Thanks for opening an issue! I can definitely see why you would want to be able to control / omit the error message. And you are correct that is where the warning comes from.

The one concern I have with just omitting the warning altogether with chainId: "" is that, before submitting a transaction securely, a developer should know that they are using the correct chainId to prevent transaction forwarding (e.g. preventing a malicious node operator from taking a valid transaction on network A and submitting it on network B). So if someone sets an empty string as a placeholder but later forgets to properly set the chain id, we definitely want to warn them.

I think there are two other approaches we could take on this:

1. Optional params to .chainInfo() to disable warning

We could add an optional argument to the .chainInfo() method that makes the warning configurable. Eg:

interface ChainInfoOpts {
  disableWarning?: boolean;
}

public async chainInfo(opts?: ChainInfoOpts): Promise<GenericResponse<ChainInfo>> {
  const info = await this.client.chainInfo();

  if (!opts?.disableWarning && info.data?.chain_id !== this.chainId) {
    console.warn(
      `WARNING: Chain ID mismatch. Expected ${info.data?.chain_id}, got ${this.chainId}`
    );
  }

  return info;
}

2. Make warning respect config.logging argument

We can make the warning message respect the configuration on the config.logging property on the WebKwil Constructor. So the implementation would be:

public async chainInfo(): Promise<GenericResponse<ChainInfo>> {
    const info = await this.client.chainInfo();

    if (this.config.logging && info.data?.chain_id !== this.chainId) {
      this.config.logger!(
        `WARNING: Chain ID mismatch. Expected ${info.data?.chain_id}, got ${this.chainId}`
      );
    }

    return info;
  }

And then, you can turn this message on/off with:

new WebKwil({
    kwilProvider: "some_provider",
    chainId: "",
    logging: false / true
});

Thoughts on either of these approaches? I would probably lean towards option 1, but am open to ideas.

[pkoch]

Thank you! <3