fix: validate withdrawal address in watcher (#13) - #23

@odiseusme is attempting to deploy a commit to the rosen-bridge Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

Verification of acceptance conditions (done locally via source inspection):

1. Error display: Uses react-hook-form's formState.errors.address.message rendered through the shared TextField's helperText prop (same @rosen-bridge/ui-kit component as Rosen). Visual parity follows from the shared component.

2. Validation logic: Equivalent to Rosen's by construction. Rosen's chain runs server-side: useBridgeForm → Server Action → @rosen-network/base.validateAddress → @rosen-bridge/address-codec → for ERGO_CHAIN: ergoLib.Address.from_base58(address). Our PR runs Address.from_base58(address) directly in the browser via ergo-lib-wasm-browser. Same Rust source, same accept/reject behavior. The Watcher's output: 'export' precludes Server Actions, which is why we go direct-to-WASM.

3. react-hook-form API: useController with async validate rule, mirroring apps/rosen/src/hooks/useBridgeForm.ts. Empty check ("Address cannot be empty"), validation call, fallback ("Invalid Address"), catch-all ("Something went wrong! please try again") — all identical strings to Rosen's flow.

One small UX delta: we trim whitespace on the input's onBlur before validation. Rosen's ErgoNetwork.toSafeAddress is a no-op pass-through (return address), so where Rosen would reject " 9fuoH... ", our form accepts it. We've kept this small UX improvement intentionally — happy to discuss if there's a reason to revert.

I reviewed your #23 merge request. It works, but it’s not efficient.

Loading ergo-lib-wasm-browser on the client adds unnecessary overhead. We prefer handling this in the API and returning a simple validation result to the browser.

We’re planning to implement this on the API side, so we can continue this merge after that change.

I’m happy to take the API-side implementation on as part of this PR if that’s useful — a validation endpoint returning a simple per-chain result, with the form wired to call it instead of running WASM in the browser. Or if you’d rather build the primitive internally, I’ll wait and adapt the client once it lands. Whichever fits your roadmap — just let me know.

We will implement the API first, and then you can continue.

Sounds good — I'll wait for the API-side validation to land, then refactor this PR to drop the client-side WASM and call the endpoint instead. Ping me here (or link the endpoint) once it's ready and I'll pick it back up.

The API is already implemented here, so you can continue with this merge request.

Please use the following API to validate Ergo addresses:

/address/validate/:address

1. Update your branch with the latest dev branch.
2. Keep your changes minimal and focused.
3. Commit all changes in one clean, meaningful commit.

@odiseusme

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
ui-guard	Skipped		Sep 13, 2026 2:02pm UTC

Thanks @abdolian — rebased onto latest dev and rewritten to use the API. The client-side WASM approach is gone entirely; the branch now carries a single commit with an 8-line change to apps/watcher/src/app/actions/@form/withdraw/page.tsx.

The address field's validate rule now calls /address/validate/:address via the existing fetcher (already imported for the assets call), treating a non-200 response as an invalid address. The input is URL-encoded before being interpolated into the path.

No new files, no new dependencies. npm run build passes for the watcher app, and I verified the endpoint's behaviour against a running watcher — valid addresses return {"valid":true}, malformed base58 and bad checksums return 500 with a message, which the rule handles.

Ready for review.

This pull request can be merged
@zargarzadehm