fix: fall back to Sourcify when an explorer refuses the submission

[thedavidmeister]

Chain 4663 fails every run: Robinhood's Blockscout serves a Cloudflare challenge, which forge reads as a JSON error. Sourcify carries 4663.

A chain the explorer rejects now retries through Sourcify, failing only if that fails too. No chain is named.

The retry needs two things:

• Keys blanked. forge takes the Etherscan path whenever the chain's key holds a value, ignoring --verifier sourcify. Blank, not unset — unset, it errors resolving the table.
• --watch. Without it forge prints a job ID and exits 0, reporting a verification that has not happened.

QA

• Discriminating tests: n/a — a workflow, no harness. Evidence is the failing run: 8 of 9, failed verification on: 4663.
• Mutations applied: all three key states on 4663 — unset (environment variable CI_DEPLOY_ARBITRUM_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY not found), x (Cloudflare 403), blank (Status: match). Dropping --watch returns a job ID and exit 0 without waiting.
• Oracle: Sourcify, independent of forge and this repo — GET /v2/contract/4663/0xEc632ea4D04A6D72F87E60FEb4C6B6813cda59bd returns "match"; /server/chains lists 4663.
• Category check: covers the chain that cannot verify through its explorer. Not covered: Sourcify's onward pushes to Blockscout and Etherscan, which fail and are not this workflow's business.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius.

Note

Currently processing new changes in this PR. This may take a few minutes, please wait...

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: rainlanguage/rainix/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 57da5a70-e21e-4204-a652-69ae92ffc12c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9cd55f1 and f98cfd9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/rainix-manual-sol-verify.yaml

 ____________________________________________
< 99 little bugs in the code... I filed 100. >
 --------------------------------------------
  \
   \   \
        \ /\
        ( )
      .( o ).

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[linear]

RAI-2740

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment