refactor: remove the code to receive the contract address from wallet signing portal

[AlexD10S]

We previously added a patch to manually calculate the smart contract address in the wallet signing portal when the Instantiated event didn't exist. Receiving the address in pop-cli.
The event was reintroduced in paritytech/polkadot-sdk#8789
Since the address can now be obtained directly from the events in pop-cli, the manual calculation is no longer necessary in the wallet signing portal and can be removed.

Is basically removing undoing this commit where this was introduced: 3b7e059

The changes in the wallet signing portal that needs to be reviewed too are in: r0gue-io/pop-wallet-signing-portal#12

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR refactors the wallet integration to simplify the contract instantiation flow by removing the need to pass a contract address parameter. The contract address is now always extracted from the ContractInstantiated event after successful submission, rather than being optionally provided by the wallet.

Key changes:

• Simplified instantiate_contract_signed to extract contract address from events only
• Removed SubmitRequest struct in favor of direct String payload
• Updated all wallet integration callers to use the simplified API

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	Removed maybe_contract_address parameter and parse_h160_account import; contract address now always extracted from ContractInstantiated event
crates/pop-cli/src/wallet_integration.rs	Removed SubmitRequest struct and contract_address field from StateHandler; simplified submit handler to accept String directly
crates/pop-cli/src/common/wallet.rs	Updated request_signature to return Option<String> instead of SubmitRequest; removed unused import
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/up/contract.rs	Updated to use simplified request_signature and instantiate_contract_signed APIs
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	Updated to use simplified request_signature API

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 40.90909% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 75.63%. Comparing base (2a27f8f) to head (3af9db0).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/up/contract.rs	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/common/wallet.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #813      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.61%   75.63%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines       26833    26813      -20     
  Branches    26833    26813      -20     
==========================================
- Hits        20289    20281       -8     
+ Misses       4374     4362      -12     
  Partials     2170     2170              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
crates/pop-cli/src/wallet_integration.rs	95.71% <100.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/call/contract.rs	71.93% <0.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
crates/pop-cli/src/common/wallet.rs	11.53% <0.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
crates/pop-cli/src/commands/up/contract.rs	14.63% <0.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
crates/pop-contracts/src/up.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[moliholy]

@AlexD10S if using a polkadot-sdk version older than 2509 pallet-revive won't have that commit, isn't it?

[AlexD10S]

@AlexD10S if using a polkadot-sdk version older than 2509 pallet-revive won't have that commit, isn't it?

How did you see the 2509? PassetHub I believe has the 2507 and it has the Instantiated event

[moliholy]

How did you see the 2509?

That PR is from June this year, so it was a mere deduction.

[AlexD10S]

That PR is from June this year, so it was a mere deduction.

Ah, I see your point. Since pop-cli already assumes this event exists when deploying a contract, this PR simply mirrors that behavior in the wallet-integration-portal. I think it’s reasonable to assume the chain will have this event.

[moliholy]

Then let's go ahead!