[Feature]: allow instantiation of the web3-onboard with only the `ChainID` (no RPC URL, token name, etc)

[MOZGIII]

Is your request related to a problem?

We are building the UI that doesn't know what chain it will operate on. We can't specify the RPC URL and/or chain name or token.

Feature Description

Allow instantiating the Onboard without the chain parameters (besides chainId) known upfront. This is meant to support both public chains and private chains via the same deployment.

const chains = [
  { // no `token`, `label` or `rpcUrl`
    id: userSpecifiedChainId
  }
];

const onboard = Onboard({
  wallets,
  chains,
  appMetadata
})

The injected wallets are perfectly capable of carrying the sending of transactions without us specifying the RPC URL or other chain info. Further, wallet's switchNetwork should only require chainId, and the rest is only needed for adding a chain to the wallet. In our case this is a limiting factor.

Alternative Solutions

We could display the form to the user to input the rest of the parameters, but that would mean that user has to enter the parameters required only for adding the chain to the wallet even if they already have the required chain in their wallet. In other words, it would just suck.

Anything else?

No response

[taylorjdawson]

Hey @MOZGIII! Good idea 💡 We will add this to our backlog and keep you posted here, thanks!

[leightkt]

@MOZGIII Working on this currently. Finding that some wallets (metamask for example) require an rpcUrl to add a new chain to a wallet (switching between chains working fine with just an ID), and so a user MAY have to manually add a network that doesn't already exist in their wallet IF instantiated with only the chainId (depending on their wallet). Was this the intended behavior? Or did you have a different flow in mind?

[MOZGIII]

Yes, this is the intended behavior!

It would also be a nice to have for those wallets to allow passing their "extra" required parameters in the relevant place in their API, like when the wallet itself (not the whole web3-onboard) is configured. I assume the current design was to simplify the interaction, but it is actually limiting and confusing for the cases like this. It feels like doing things more explicitly would be so much better!

[leightkt]

@MOZGIII PR up: #1589
Does this meet your expectations or did you have other thoughts. Let me know! Thx!

[Adamj1232]

This functionality is available with our latest package versions released today. Thanks again for the suggestion and collaboration!