fix: restore simulation_results handling in sendJsonRpcRequest

[Sednaoui]

Fixes #182

Red/green verified: test/transport/sendJsonRpcRequest.simulation-results.test.js (real local HTTP server) reproduces the TypeError on pre-fix dev (1 failed) and passes with the fix (3 passed).

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Restored support for Tenderly-style simulation responses that return simulation_results so these payloads are correctly returned as successful JSON-RPC responses while preserving standard result and error handling.

• Tests

  • Added end-to-end tests validating handling of simulation_results, standard result, and JSON-RPC error responses.

• Documentation

  • Changelog updated with the fix.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

Pull request was closed or merged during review

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 3da46ad7-4bc1-4c82-9b65-c62ddd5f9728

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3c37dee and 01a58c8.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• CHANGELOG.md
• src/utils.ts
• test/transport/sendJsonRpcRequest.simulation-results.test.js

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)

• CHANGELOG.md
• test/transport/sendJsonRpcRequest.simulation-results.test.js

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR restores support for Tenderly-style non-standard JSON-RPC responses in sendJsonRpcRequest. A transport refactor previously broke handling of simulation_results field; this change adds a conditional branch to return simulation results as the successful response, prevents TypeErrors, and includes test coverage validating all response patterns.

Changes

sendJsonRpcRequest Tenderly response support

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Implementation and changelog src/utils.ts, CHANGELOG.md	sendJsonRpcRequest adds a check for simulation_results field on the RPC response, returning it as the result when result is not present. Changelog documents the restored behavior for Tenderly-style endpoints.
Test validation test/transport/sendJsonRpcRequest.simulation-results.test.js	Jest test suite with local HTTP server verifies sendJsonRpcRequest correctly returns simulation_results, handles standard result responses, and rejects errors with expected code and message fields.

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

🐰 A simulation caught the eye,
Results were lost way up high,
We fetch them again,
No more error refrain,
Tenderly calls now respond with a sigh!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 50.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description links issue #182 and describes the test verification, but lacks details on what was changed (Summary section), testing approach (Test section), and compatibility implications (Risk/Compatibility section) as specified in the template.	Expand description to include: a summary of the code change made to restore simulation_results handling, detailed test approach and coverage, and any risk or compatibility considerations.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: restoring simulation_results handling in sendJsonRpcRequest, which aligns with the primary objective of fixing issue #182.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The code changes directly address issue #182 by restoring the simulation_results branch in sendJsonRpcRequest and adding comprehensive test coverage for the fix.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes (code fix, CHANGELOG update, and test file) are directly scoped to restoring simulation_results handling and verifying the fix, with no extraneous modifications detected.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[sherifahmed990]

LGTM