The test is broken on master branch now even following the README. The minimum to fix this is altering domainType in the test file as below:

const domainType = [{
        name: "name",
        type: "string"
    },
    {
        name: "version",
        type: "string"
    },
-   {
-       name: "chainId",
-       type: "uint256"
-   },
    {
        name: "verifyingContract",
        type: "address"
    },
+   {
+       name: "salt",
+       type: "bytes32"
+   }
];

and domainData in the test file should be altered as below:

domainData = {
    name: "TestContract",
    version: "1",
    verifyingContract: testContract.address,
-   chainId: 99999
+   salt: "0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002A" // chainID: 42
};

But I suggest we add all fields (name, version, chainId, verifyingContract, salt) to it or at least don't use chain ID as salt.

• string name the user readable name of signing domain, i.e. the name of the DApp or the protocol.
• string version the current major version of the signing domain. Signatures from different versions are not compatible.
• uint256 chainId the EIP-155 chain id. The user-agent should refuse signing if it does not match the currently active chain.
• address verifyingContract the address of the contract that will verify the signature. The user-agent may do contract specific phishing prevention.
• bytes32 salt an disambiguating salt for the protocol. This can be used as a domain separator of last resort.

MetaMask - RPC Error: Internal JSON-RPC error.
{code: -32603, message: "Internal JSON-RPC error.", data: {…}}
code: -32603
data: {code: -32000, message: "missing from address"}

I get the following linting error when adding the contracts to my project:

SPDX license identifier not provided in source file. Before publishing, consider adding a comment containing "SPDX-License-Identifier: " to each source file. Use "SPDX-License-Identifier: UNLICENSED" for non-open-source code. Please see https://spdx.org for more information.

USDC in BSC has 18 decimals, so need support for values in the range 1e18 for meta transactions.

Getting the below error when trying to use big numbers, However it is working well with normal txns without Biconomy

Uncaught (in promise) Error: invalid hexlify value (operation="checkSafeInteger", fault="out-of-safe-range", value=1000000000000000000, code=NUMERIC_FAULT, version=bytes/5.0.10)

The word 'separator' is misspelled in this source code: https://github.com/bcnmy/metatx-standard/blob/master/src/contracts/lib/EIP712Base.sol

The executeMetaTransaction function has the payable modifier, and users can pass in native tokens such as ETH when calling this function. But the incoming ETH is not handled properly inside executeMetaTransaction.

There is no msg.value passed in the function call here:
https://github.com/bcnmy/metatx-standard/blob/master/src/contracts/EIP712MetaTransaction.sol#L49

If the target function relies on msg.value for data recording, it may cause that the ETH passed in by tx.origin cannot be processed or the target function throws an exception. The native token will remain in the contract and may not be able to be withdrawn.

The test contract looks like this:

contract Pool is EIP712MetaTransaction("TestMetaTransaction", "1"){
    mapping (address=>uint256) public userInfo;
    function deposit(uint256 amount) public payable{
        require(msg.value==amount);
        userInfo[msgSender()] = userInfo[msgSender()] + msg.value; 
    }
    function withdraw(uint256 amount)public {
        payable(msgSender()).transfer(amount);
        userInfo[msgSender()] = userInfo[msgSender()] - amount;
    }
}

When the executeMetaTransaction function is used to stake for other addresses, ETH is sent to the Pool contract, but it cannot be recorded in the userInfo mapping. As a result, the transfer cannot be withdrawn.

It is suggested to change to:

(bool success, bytes memory returnData) = address(this).call{value:msg.value}(abi.encodePacked(functionSignature, userAddress));

BEOSIN is a leading global blockchain security company dedicated to the construction of blockchain security ecology.

If you need additional assistance, please contact us from:
twitter: https://twitter.com/Beosin_com
telegram: https://t.me/dawnxia

https://github.com/opengsn/forwarder/blob/master/contracts/BaseRelayRecipient.sol not found

When I run branch erc20-forwarder-demo, errors are reported:

Current provider network id: 5

Please pass a provider connected to a wallet that can sign messages in Biconomy options

ERC20 Forwarder is not supported for this network

It doesn't seem to support Goerli.

I changed my network to Ropsten but the Demo here isn't working for me: https://metatx.biconomy.io/

Maybe it isn't working because Metamask changed how it works or something.