Outdated recovery example

[ennioVisco]

We noted two inconsistencies that are very frustrating:

1. The doc is not updated with the current code, more precisely the recovery information is passed differently here and here.
2. Moreover, in both cases, we cannot seem to make it work because we keep getting any/the first userOp reverted with 0x756688fe (which seems to be "InvalidNonce"). This holds true even if the nonce is passed by calling kernelAccount.getNonce(nonceKey).

Any ideas how to solve it? We love the toolkit you people at ZeroDev are building, and we'd really appreciate if you supported us in getting started with them!

[ennioVisco]

@SahilVasava any updates about this? It is fairly blocking for us in adopting ZeroDev in production...

[ennioVisco]

@SahilVasava something is off about the updated example:

zerodev-examples/guardians/recovery.ts

Line 81 in d16ef97

const kernelClient = createKernelAccountClient({

The client that executes the recovery action is created from the account corresponding to the sudo validator, but it should be the one corresponding to the regular one, otherwise this does not make any sense (if a recovery action is started, presumably, it's because the access to the sudo validator is not available...).

[Vidhan123]

Same issue, can't get it working.

@ennioVisco
Were you able to resolve this or find a workaround?

[ennioVisco]

Same issue, can't get it working.

@ennioVisco
Were you able to resolve this or find a workaround?

Unfortunately not, we are just hoping that by the time we actually need this feature, things will be clearer somehow 😔

[Vidhan123]

It's been 4 months and still no reply to this issue; I have opened other issues as well, like rate limit policy for session key is not working, but no one seem to reply to any of the open issues.

For this particular recovery issue even if you try on their hosted demo website, it doesn't work. It's very frustrating.

[Vidhan123]

@ennioVisco

For me the recovery example seems to be working on Arbitrum Sepolia, the only issue I feel is that there no option to set the guardian.

Ideally, it should be in 2 steps:
1 - Set guardian
2 - Recover with guardian

The example is like transferring ownership directly.

[ennioVisco]

@ennioVisco

For me the recovery example seems to be working on Arbitrum Sepolia, the only issue I feel is that there no option to set the guardian.

Ideally, it should be in 2 steps:
1 - Set guardian
2 - Recover with guardian

The example is like transferring ownership directly.

I think in our case setting the guardian works.
Recovery from it is indeed a major problem.

[Vidhan123]

@ennioVisco
For me the recovery example seems to be working on Arbitrum Sepolia, the only issue I feel is that there no option to set the guardian.
Ideally, it should be in 2 steps:
1 - Set guardian
2 - Recover with guardian
The example is like transferring ownership directly.

I think in our case setting the guardian works. Recovery from it is indeed a major problem.

How do you set the guardian? There's no UserOp executed in the example to set the guardian?

[Vidhan123]

@ennioVisco

Example
It's directly transferring ownership from oldSigner to newSigner in the example, "guardian" seem to be useless here.