Optional chain parameter in Scaffold hooks

[JacobHomanics]

Description

Provides the option to pass a different network into the scaffold hooks than the one that the user's wallet is currently connected to. This allows for applications that can show data from different blockchains than that of which the user's wallet is connected to. The hooks still abide by the rules that the contract instance's need to be within the deployedContracts file and targetNetworks needs to have the expected chain(s) present.

live example: https://scaffold-eth-optional-chains-example-nextjs.vercel.app/
live example repo: https://github.com/Hotmanics/scaffold-eth-optionalChainsExample

Additional Information

• I have read the contributing docs (if this is your first contribution)
• This is not a duplicate of any existing pull request

Your ENS/address: jacobhomanics.eth

[rin-st]

Thank you for pr @Hotmanics !

Some thoughts regarding params:
so if I want for example pass writeContractParams without chain, I need to use undefined every time?

const { writeContractAsync } = useScaffoldWriteContract("YourContract", undefined, {});

changing order to contractName, writeContractParams?, chain? will cause same problem when needed to pass chain without writeContractParams.

So maybe we need to change params to object {contractName, writeContractParams?, chain?} here and for all other hooks without object in params? And params will become more consistent. Because for now somewhere we have objects, somewhere not. Or another option: (contractName, options?: {writeContractParams?, chain?}) but I'm voting for one object. Probably this can be changed in later pr's

Don't change it right now, let's wait Shiv or Carlos

cc @technophile-04 @carletex

[JacobHomanics]

You are absolutely correct. This was an oversight by me.

Not sure as the best path forward, I'm sure others will be able to provide a more detailed observation.

Appreciate you looking at the PR!

[JacobHomanics]

Any more thoughts on this?