Use EIP-1191 next breaking change

[roninjin10]

Wagmi does not pass the chainId into getAddress. Example:

wagmi/packages/connectors/src/metaMask.ts

Line 113 in 8fc039d

return accounts.map((x) => getAddress(x))

Passing the chainId will overall be a better ux default but since it's a breaking change this change should happen on a breaking release

Links

EIP-1191: https://github.com/ethereum/ercs/blob/master/ERCS/erc-1191.md
getAddress: https://viem.sh/docs/utilities/getAddress#chainid-optional

[sambacha]

Wagmi does not pass the chainId into getAddress. Example:

wagmi/packages/connectors/src/metaMask.ts

Line 113 in 8fc039d

return accounts.map((x) => getAddress(x))

Passing the chainId will overall be a better ux default but since it's a breaking change this change should happen on a breaking release

Links

EIP-1191: https://github.com/ethereum/ercs/blob/master/ERCS/erc-1191.md

getAddress: https://viem.sh/docs/utilities/getAddress#chainid-optional

Can we do replay protection extension at the contract level and provide a stronger guarantee potentially?

// constructor 
deploymentChainId = block.chainid;
_DOMAIN_SEPARATOR = _calculateDomainSeparator(block.chainid);


/// ... Return the DOMAIN_SEPARATOR.
return block.chainid == deploymentChainId ? _DOMAIN_SEPARATOR : _calculateDomainSeparator(block.chainid);


/// ...   IERC2612-permit abi.encode
block.chainid == deploymentChainId ? _DOMAIN_SEPARATOR : _calculateDomainSeparator(block.chainid),

[roninjin10]

Ethers.js and web3.js do not support this EIP. That is a strong reason to not adopt it in wagmi especially considering it comes with negative tradeoffs in the form of potential casing bugs/confusion. Will leave this open for now though but maybe we close this issue.