better handle of the revert raison of a call (issue #4454)

[nicos99]

Description

Improvement of web3-core-method.buildCall.sendTxCallback(err, result) to manage various object data structures when looking for the revert reason info got from some providers like MetaMask. See this comment to know what err.data looks like in MetaMask.

Fixes #4454. I am aware that this is not realy a bug of web3 and that the problem should be corrected at the source, however as the error generated breaks the promise system (uncaught exception) and that this was well handled until version 1.2.9, I considers that it is necessary to adapt the code to better strengthen the library.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist for 1.x:

• I have selected the correct base branch.
• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• My changes generate no new warnings.
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.
• I ran npm run dtslint with success and extended the tests and types if necessary.
• I ran npm run test:cov and my test cases cover all the lines and branches of the added code.
• I ran npm run build with success.
• I have tested the built dist/web3.min.js in a browser.
• I have tested my code on the live network.
• I have checked the Deploy Preview and it looks correct.
• I have updated the CHANGELOG.md file in the root folder.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4671156834

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 5 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 72.674%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
packages/web3-core-method/lib/index.js	5	93.97%

Totals
Change from base Build 4667138294:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	3473
Relevant Lines:	4499

---

💛 - Coveralls

[luu-alex]

hey @nicos99 thank you for the PR. as well can you update the changelog that notes your change?

[nicos99]

Hello @luu-alex

hey @nicos99 thank you for the PR. as well can you update the changelog that notes your change?

I updated the file the moment I opened the PR. Now there's a conflict with the 1.x branch but I thought I'd fix it once I got some feedback. I have to do this now?

[luu-alex]

My only feedback would be @nicos99 can you also include a reference/link to what err.data looks like in metamask? other than that I dont see any other concern in this PR, other than u needing to fix the conflicting file

[nicos99]

My only feedback would be @nicos99 can you also include a reference/link to what err.data looks like in metamask? other than that I dont see any other concern in this PR, other than u needing to fix the conflicting file

@luu-alex I put two screenshots inside the issue #4454 when I open the PR. I've juste updated the PR description to add a link to (See this comment to know what err.data looks like in MetaMask.).

[nicos99]

Ok @jdevcs , I'm working on it...

[jdevcs]

@nicos99 There is need to fix conflicting files Thanks

[nicos99]

@Muhammad-Altabba I'm sorry to have canceled your work (PR #6000) but I've been working on the resolution for a long time, which integrates 2 scenarios and adds Unit Tests

[nicos99]

There is need to fix conflicting files Thanks

@jdevcs, ok, conflict solved. Can you please merge the PR for me now? (I do not have write access)

[Muhammad-Altabba]

Many thanks for your contribution

[nicos99]

Many thanks for your contribution

@Muhammad-Altabba, you're welcome! Now can you or someone else complete the PR please? ( Maybe @avkos or @nikoulai ?)

[luu-alex]

Merged #6009 Thank you @nicos99