ui: incorrect fee displayed for user-prompt action to bump fees

[norwnd]

I've noticed there is a typo with displaying "old fee" in UI when user action to bump fees shows up,

I wrote some code to address that - norwnd@adb9438 - but there are also other adjustments in there that are probably useful to consider (I've dug into different "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios while at it and fixed a bunch of issues in there too), feel free to borrow whatever code you want.

[dev-warrior777]

Thank you for your useful testing and involvement. May I ask you if you have any links for "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios that you found useful. Thanks in advance.

[norwnd]

May I ask you if you have any links for "stuck EVM transaction" scenarios that you found useful. Thanks in advance.

I'll point out couple off the top of my head, I guess the get them all you'd need to study the code in the commit I've linked above (and the summary below might not be 100% correct, but it's what I found to work "better than what's currently in master"):

• incorrect fee displayed (which this issue is about) is fixed
• user action(s) seem to be requested either 1 time at most, or just way too rarely (maybe with 2h delays between them or something like that)
• Polygon fee bump does not work sometimes if we don't bump tip part (which current master code doesn't really do and rather leaves it to chance)
• New Fee shown to the user in UI (the fee bump he approves) is not "enforced", meaning user approves fees A while in fact he might actually get fees B that could end up being 2x, 3x or magnitudes higher
• user-configured MaxFee (wallet setting) isn't respected, that's outside of the scope of this issue/changes but the commit I've linked above (which is also based on prior changes I've made in my forked code) also addresses it for redeems
• the is no Abandon option for transaction that's stuck in current master (I think only certain transactions stuck for long time can be abandoned, but that doesn't cover all the use-cases well enough)
• and I've also added some clarifying comments/logs

to be fair, I haven't done extensive testing for this change of mine ^ but I will test it out some more over time and fix the rough edges if any are left - but regardless it's clear to me all those things I've listed above need to be addressed for fee-bump mechanism to be useful