fix(wallet): adopt instance estimateShieldedFee from platform #4470

[llbartekll]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Prerequisite for #1062, split out per review there: platform v4.2-dev merged dashpay/platform#4470 (bea4122858), which turned PlatformWalletManager.estimateShieldedFee from a static func into an instance method computed at the manager's network-tracked platform version. The app still called it statically in six files, so no platform revision could satisfy both this API and the merged shutdown API from dashpay/platform#4469 (1e26927c61, whose ancestor #4470 is).

What was done?

Migrated all 15 call sites (SendViewModel/SendScreen, InternalTransferViewModel/ConfirmSheet, ShieldedTransferCoordinator, SDKIdentityProfileSheet) from PlatformWalletManager.estimateShieldedFee(...) to SwiftDashSDKHost.shared.manager?.estimateShieldedFee(...) — the live host manager, same try? fallbacks as before. Mechanical; no behavior change beyond the fee now being computed at the connected network's active protocol version (the point of #4470).

How Has This Been Tested?

• DashPay Debug build for a generic iOS Simulator against platform v4.2-dev @ 1e26927c61 (rebuilt DashSDKFFI.xcframework, both slices): BUILD SUCCEEDED.

Breaking Changes

None.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

For repository code-owners and collaborators only

• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 2 minutes.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: b3d6e54f-d38b-4aba-9475-340210ce745c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 53bb20d and dcbc78e.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)

• DashWallet/Sources/UI/DashPay/Profile/SDKIdentityProfileSheet.swift
• DashWallet/Sources/UI/Payments/InternalTransfer/InternalTransferConfirmSheet.swift
• DashWallet/Sources/UI/Payments/InternalTransfer/InternalTransferViewModel.swift
• DashWallet/Sources/UI/Payments/InternalTransfer/ShieldedTransferCoordinator.swift
• DashWallet/Sources/UI/Payments/Pay/SendScreen.swift
• DashWallet/Sources/UI/Payments/Pay/SendViewModel.swift

---

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.}

[romchornyi]

Reviewed and built this. Exactly the split-out I asked for on #1062, and it holds up — one non-blocking note.

Build

fix/shielded-fee-instance-api on develop, against platform v4.2-dev @ 1e26927c61. Only local modification is the SwiftDashSDK package path; no source patches.

0 compile errors
0 linker errors
Ld .../dashpay.app/dashpay.debug.dylib
Ld .../dashpay.app/dashpay
** BUILD SUCCEEDED **

The warnings in these six files (InternalTransferConfirmSheet.swift:75, ShieldedTransferCoordinator.swift:689/1435/1460, SendScreenViewController.swift:45) are all on untouched lines and pre-existing — this PR adds none.

Verified

It is a clean split-out. git diff between this branch and the dcbc78ef6 commit carried inside #1062 is empty, so what I already reviewed there is exactly what lands here — no extras rode along.

The migration is complete. All 15 sites across the 6 files, and no static call survives anywhere in the code (the only remaining mention is a line in the historical ARCH_REVIEW_2026-07-03.md).

Nil-manager behavior is preserved at 14 of the 15 sites — they return UInt64? upward and their callers already treat nil as unavailable (InternalTransferViewModel.swift:63 guards and returns nil; ShieldedTransferCoordinator.swift:378 hands the optional out of its closure).

The branch is level with develop and merges clean.

One note

SDKIdentityProfileSheet.swift:445 is the single site that coerces:

unshieldFee = (try? SwiftDashSDKHost.shared.manager?.estimateShieldedFee(kind: .unshield, numActions: 2)) ?? 0

The static call could not fail for "no manager"; the instance call can, and ?? 0 turns that into a zero fee. I traced where it goes — estimatedFeeCredits feeds estimatedFeeText, the "~X DASH (≈ Y)" label, and does not gate the Top Up button (effectiveDuffs is computed independently). The window where manager is nil while the DashPay profile sheet is on screen is also narrow, since the sheet needs an identity and that needs a live runtime. So this is tidiness, not a funds risk.

What is worth a line, though, is the doc comment right above it:

/// ... (shielded route only, via the pure `estimateShieldedFee` FFI) ...

"pure" is no longer true — computing the estimate at the manager's active protocol version is the whole point of #4470. That sentence is what tells the next reader why there is an optional here at all.

Approving — the migration is mechanical, complete, and builds.