Change template #34

poppyseedDev · 2025-09-23T15:33:18Z

Screen.Recording.2025-09-23.at.17.47.47.mov

…dule

vercel · 2025-09-23T16:04:34Z

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

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
fhevm-react-template	Error			Oct 7, 2025 11:43am

RegisGraptin · 2025-09-26T14:15:04Z

Here some comments, please take it as a reflection on the template we want to propose.

Today I think the code implementation is a bit too complex to understand and visualize how users can use FHEVM directly in their dapp. It would be nice to use on the frontend some hooks for reading and writing on the contract by using viem library for that. Same with chain management, I have the feeling for each action we need to fetch and specify it. I would be in favor of having viem managing that directly and delegate this part. In all the cases, we truly need to simplify it. New users might have some knowledge of web3 but today I do not see/understand how we are interacting with the FHE through the demo in the code.

I would also be in favor to organize the code in a way that it is simple for a user to create a new component folder to directly work on their use cases by having the counter as an example, or for experiment developers to delete the counter example and write directly their own implementation. But in all the cases it has to be simple, multiple component if needed to illustrate and understand the different process.

For the demo, I would maybe increase the refresh, to avoid the light on/off effect. And add a delay when we display the decryption of the counter, which in my case is a bit too fast for me to read the value.

Do not hesitate if some of my points are not clear or if I misunderstand something.

.gitmodules

packages/nextjs/hooks/wagmi/useWagmiEthers.ts

packages/site/hooks/fhecounter-example/useFHECounterWagmi.tsx

RegisGraptin · 2025-09-26T13:11:24Z

packages/nextjs/hooks/fhecounter-example/useFHECounterWagmi.tsx

+    // Wagmi-specific values
+    chainId,
+    accounts,
+    isConnected,
+    ethersSigner,


Why do we need to pass those value here? Could we not dissociate the contract process (fhecounter) and the wallet connection?
I think it would be nice if we could simplify this code example to simplify the on-boarding of new users. To let them pass less time trying to understand the code, but more on the interaction process.
I am just thinking of people who could have some experience in React/wagmi but nothing in FHE, it has to be easy and simple.

packages/site/hooks/fhecounter-example/useFHECounterWagmi.tsx

RegisGraptin · 2025-09-26T13:34:21Z

packages/fhevm-sdk/src/react/useFHEDecrypt.ts

+export const useFHEDecrypt = (params: {
+  instance: FhevmInstance | undefined;
+  ethersSigner: ethers.JsonRpcSigner | undefined;
+  fhevmDecryptionSignatureStorage: GenericStringStorage;
+  chainId: number | undefined;
+  requests: readonly FHEDecryptRequest[] | undefined;
+}) => {


Should we not parse the result value here? I might know where I get the handle from (user balance, result of a poll) then decide to have the parsing done here directly?

packages/fhevm-sdk/src/react/useFHEDecrypt.ts

RegisGraptin · 2025-09-26T13:45:06Z

packages/fhevm-sdk/src/react/useFHEEncryption.ts

+  const encryptWith = useCallback(
+    async (buildFn: (builder: RelayerEncryptedInput) => void): Promise<EncryptResult | undefined> => {
+      if (!instance || !ethersSigner || !contractAddress) return undefined;
+
+      const userAddress = await ethersSigner.getAddress();
+      const input = instance.createEncryptedInput(contractAddress, userAddress) as RelayerEncryptedInput;
+      buildFn(input);
+      const enc = await input.encrypt();
+      return enc;
+    },
+    [instance, ethersSigner, contractAddress],
+  );


In the code example I can see

const firstInput = functionAbi.inputs[0]!; const method = getEncryptionMethod(firstInput.internalType); const enc = await encryptWith(builder => { (builder as any)[method](valueAbs); }); if (!enc) return setMessage("Encryption failed");

I apologize but I do not understand what it is doing? How can I encrypt multiple elements? Can I stack them? I am afraid than trying to abstract too much here, we are completely losing what we are trying to do here.

In some of our implementation we have try to be exhaustive, maybe not the best approach

Defined types

export enum SUPPORTED_TYPES { 'ebool', 'euint4', 'euint8', 'euint16', 'euint32', 'euint64', 'euint128', 'euint160', 'euint256', 'address', 'bytes64', 'bytes128', 'bytes256' } const SUPPORTED_TYPES_MAP: Record<SUPPORTED_TYPES, number> = { [SUPPORTED_TYPES.ebool]: 0, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint4]: 1, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint8]: 2, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint16]: 3, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint32]: 4, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint64]: 5, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint128]: 6, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint160]: 7, // @dev It is the one for eaddresses. [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint256]: 8, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.address]: 7, // @dev It is the one for eaddresses. [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes64]: 9, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes128]: 10, [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes256]: 11 } const EXPECTED_TYPE_TO_RESULT_MAP: Record<SUPPORTED_TYPES, 'boolean' | 'bigint' | 'string'> = { [SUPPORTED_TYPES.ebool]: 'boolean', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint4]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint8]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint16]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint32]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint64]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint128]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint160]: 'string', // @dev It is the one for eaddresses. [SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint256]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.address]: 'string', // @dev It is the one for eaddresses. [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes64]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes128]: 'bigint', [SUPPORTED_TYPES.bytes256]: 'bigint' }

But this allow us to simply defined the handle logic

const decryptionHandle = { value: hexHandleToBigInt(bid.eAmount), type: SUPPORTED_TYPES.euint64, contractAddress: NEXT_PUBLIC_AUCTION_CONTRACT } const { decryptedValues, isDecrypting, decrypt } = useDecrypt([decryptionHandle])

currently it looks at the abi defined internal method to check what kind of type it should be, so it's automated.

Yes I understand that you are reading the ABI to determined the exact type needed for your function. But here how do you handle multiple encrypted parameters? Do you need to stacked them as follow?

const enc = await encryptWith(builder => { (builder as any)["add64"](10)["add64"](20); }); if (!enc) return setMessage("Encryption failed");

IMO, I think we should simplify this process. Maybe a topic to set in an issue.

RegisGraptin · 2025-09-26T13:56:17Z

packages/fhevm-sdk/src/react/useFHEDecrypt.ts

+export const useFHEDecrypt = (params: {
+  instance: FhevmInstance | undefined;
+  ethersSigner: ethers.JsonRpcSigner | undefined;
+  fhevmDecryptionSignatureStorage: GenericStringStorage;
+  chainId: number | undefined;
+  requests: readonly FHEDecryptRequest[] | undefined;
+}) => {


I see some parameter that we need to redefined each time as

instance: FhevmInstance | undefined; ethersSigner: ethers.JsonRpcSigner | undefined; fhevmDecryptionSignatureStorage: GenericStringStorage; chainId: number | undefined;

Would it be not possible to abtract them? Cannot we retrieve the instance using the useFhevm() hook if we already initialize before?
This is a naive question and I maybe missed some stuff, but was wondering if a Singleton pattern could not help us here, instead of distributing in our code the instance.
Same with the chainId, is it not something we could retrieve?

And for the storage, we would definitively need a way to store the handles. Could we not defined on by default using a configuration system? As some defined in scaffold.config.ts? Again, not a statement but more a design reflection here

packages/site/scaffold.config.ts

RegisGraptin

I am not sure I have the rights to approve this PR.

Nevertheless, I do not know how you want to organized on this project, but please keep track of the discussion. I truly believe we need to simplify the nextjs project as currently, I think, it is really hard to appropriate this template to build your own dapp.
And I do not want to leave it as it is as I think it can be helpful to have a good starter. Let's discuss about it.

0xalexbel · 2025-09-23T17:50:06Z

pnpm-workspace.yaml

Got this message after pnpm install

Run "pnpm approve-builds" to pick which dependencies should be allowed to run scripts.
May be we could add an instruction in the README to help the user handle this situation, What do you think ?

resolved this :)

poppyseedDev · 2025-10-08T12:04:26Z

Also changed the visuals to more ZAMA style:

poppyseedDev added 5 commits September 22, 2025 16:54

Remove existing packages/fhevm-hardhat-template to replace with submo…

cb07e21

…dule

Remove erroneous submodule entry packages/packages/fhevm-hardhat-

855a219

feat: adding initial template

9fc2f7b

feat: works both on sepolia and hardhat

15ad246

feat: remove unnecessary components

45a6220

poppyseedDev requested a review from 0xalexbel September 23, 2025 15:33

poppyseedDev changed the title ~~Poppyseed/imporvments~~ Change template Sep 23, 2025

fix: add README changes

8ed81f4

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 23, 2025 16:26 Failure

fix: installation issue

08b049b

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 24, 2025 08:43 Failure

ci: fix so it doesnt exec

2a5a762

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 24, 2025 14:38 Failure

Track submodule on main and update to latest

99b0b2d

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 24, 2025 15:49 Failure

ci: try to fix ts-node problem

fbb88d8

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 24, 2025 16:09 Failure

docs: updated readme

e8608f1

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 25, 2025 15:47 Failure

feat: added better connect wallet info box

cb53a85

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 25, 2025 16:03 Failure

fix: fix linting issues

ce9282e

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview September 25, 2025 16:55 Failure

RegisGraptin reviewed Sep 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix: addresses a few pr issues

f1895db

vercel bot had a problem deploying to Preview October 7, 2025 11:43 Failure

poppyseedDev added 2 commits October 7, 2025 14:06

feat: renaming done

8a7789a

fix: fix build and fix useFHEDecrypt

4beced9

RegisGraptin approved these changes Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

0xalexbel approved these changes Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

poppyseedDev added 3 commits October 8, 2025 13:49

feat: change visual to zama visual

0c10a11

feat: change visual to zama visual

4ebbb20

fix: approve-build warning gone

545e52f

poppyseedDev merged commit 4617473 into main Oct 8, 2025

poppyseedDev deleted the poppyseed/imporvments branch October 8, 2025 12:06

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Change template #34

Change template #34

poppyseedDev commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin commented Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

poppyseedDev Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin left a comment

Uh oh!

0xalexbel Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

poppyseedDev Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

poppyseedDev commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Change template #34

Change template #34

Conversation

poppyseedDev commented Sep 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vercel bot commented Sep 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin commented Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RegisGraptin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

poppyseedDev commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

poppyseedDev commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

vercel bot commented Sep 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading