🐛 app: align propose and execute block timestamps

[dieguezguille]

---

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Proposal simulations now align timestamps and block information, ensuring simulate and execute steps use consistent scheduling and preserved time offsets; simulation runs only when required timing data is available.

• Chores

  • Declared a patch release for the mobile package to roll out the timing fix.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 02c436c

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: d66dc80b-8a16-4b28-81ea-ed93eb760de8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 30ab743 and 02c436c.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .changeset/warm-eagles-glow.md
• src/utils/useSimulateProposal.ts

---

Walkthrough

Added a changeset for a patch release and updated the proposal simulation hook to read blockNumber, gate blockOverrides on successful reads (timestamp, delay, blockNumber), and tighten simulate-blocks enablement conditions.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Release Metadata /.changeset/warm-eagles-glow.md	Added a patch changeset for @exactly/mobile documenting a bug-fix (align timestamps between “propose” and “execute” simulation blocks).
Simulation Logic src/utils/useSimulateProposal.ts	Added getBlockNumber to the multicall read set and destructuring (blockNumber), updated useSimulateBlocks calls to pass blockNumber only on success, made first-block blockOverrides.time conditional on timestamp success, gated the second-block time offset on timestamp and delay success (ordering corrected), and tightened the overall enabled condition to require successful blockNumber and timestamp reads.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~40 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• ♻️ app: replace proposal simulation with simulate blocks, batch contract reads #907 — Modifies the same useSimulateProposal simulation flow (adds blockNumber read and tightens simulation gating).

Suggested reviewers

• dieguezguille
• franm91

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: aligning timestamps between propose and execute blocks in the useSimulateProposal utility, which is the core objective of this patch.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch proposals

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical bug in the application's proposal simulation logic. It ensures that the timestamps used during block simulation for proposals are correctly aligned with the intended execution timestamps. This enhancement improves the accuracy and reliability of simulations, preventing potential inconsistencies that could arise from misaligned time references.

Highlights

• Timestamp Alignment: Corrected an issue where the simulated block timestamps for proposals were not consistently aligned with the actual execution timestamps, leading to potential discrepancies in simulation results.
• Simulation Accuracy: Enhanced the useSimulateProposal hook to leverage blockOverrides within useSimulateBlocks, ensuring that the simulated block time accurately reflects the timestamp.result from the proposal.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[devin-ai-integration]

✅ Devin Review: No Issues Found

Devin Review analyzed this PR and found no potential bugs to report.

View in Devin Review to see 1 additional finding.

[sentry]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 71.62%. Comparing base (892d0ef) to head (02c436c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #914      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.60%   71.62%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         226      226              
  Lines        8198     8201       +3     
  Branches     2634     2637       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         5870     5874       +4     
  Misses       2100     2100              
+ Partials      228      227       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	71.61% <100.00%> (+19.08%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 661625a8bb

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dd182a9a-a016-4119-94ca-acf40ea322e9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 661625a and 30ab743.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .changeset/warm-eagles-glow.md
• src/utils/useSimulateProposal.ts

[devin-ai-integration]

Devin Review found 0 new potential issues.

View 3 additional findings in Devin Review.