Custom Client type inference through the wagmi hooks

[rictorlome]

Hello I am trying to get custom requests registered through the wagmiConfig via the createClient call. Here's what I'm trying to do:

import { type CallParameters, type WalletRpcSchema, createClient, rpcSchema } from 'viem';
type CustomRpcSchema = [
  ...WalletRpcSchema,
  {
    Method: 'my-custom-method';
    Parameters: [];
    ReturnType: string;
  },
];

export const wagmiConfig = createConfig({
  chains: [...],
  client: ({ chain }) => {
    return createClient({ chain, transport: http(), rpcSchema: rpcSchema<CustomRpcSchema>() }).extend((client) => ({
      async doCustomStuff(_args: CallParameters) {
        return await client.request({
          method: 'my-custom-method', // this is happy...
          params: [], // maybe use args here
        });
      },
    }));
  },
  connectors: [...],
 ...etc
})


import { useConnectorClient, usePublicClient, useClient, useWalletClient } from 'wagmi';
// per https://wagmi.sh/react/typescript#declaration-merging
declare module 'wagmi' {
  interface Register {
    config: typeof wagmiConfig;
  }
}
const myHook = () => {
   const {data: walletClientDefault} = useWalletClient();
   const {data: walletClient} = useWalletClient({config: wagmiConfig});
   // the below calls would go in some fetcher library or useEffect, but for demonstration...

   // register approach
   walletClientDefault?.doCustomStuff() // type error
   walletClientDefault?.request({method: 'my-custom-method', params: []}) // type error
   // explicit approach
   walletClient?.doCustomStuff() // type error
   walletClient?.request({method: 'my-custom-method', params: []}) // type error
}

I also tried with the different client hooks. It doesn't look like the custom Client type is propagating through to these hooks via the type of the Config. Is there another way to register the custom client type?

I don't really need a custom action as long as I can register custom requests via rpcSchema.

Is it possible to get this to work somehow?

Similar discussions:
#4485