fix: add set/deleteGuard

[iamacook]

What it solves

Resolves #3639

How this PR fixes it

The collapsed label and correct transaction info displays have been added for set/deleteGuard calls. A fallback for any future new SettingsInfo has been added that will simply show the type as well.

How to test it

Open rin:0x6cf158C37354d8da5396fb6d3e965318CCf119c1 on the production CGW and observe the correct labelling of the setGuard (in the history) and deleteGuard (in the queue). When expanding the transaction, the info should be displayed.

Screenshots

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite All Contributors have signed the CLA.

[iamacook]

This isn't based off dev as I'm waiting on the other PR to be merged first.

[github-actions]

ESLint Summary View Full Report

Annotations are provided inline on the Files Changed tab. You can also see all annotations that were generated on the annotations page.

Type	Occurrences	Fixable
Errors	0	0
Warnings	0	0
Ignored	0	N/A

• Result: ✅ success
• Annotations: 0 total

---

^{Report generated by eslint-plus-action}

[github-actions]

Deployment links

🟠 Rinkeby	⚪ Mainnet	🟣 Polygon	🟡 BSC	⚫ Arbitrum	🟢 Gnosis Chain

[github-actions]

E2E Tests Failed
Check the results here: https://github.com/gnosis/safe-react-e2e-tests/actions/runs/1963243256

Failed tests:

• ❌ Add an existing safe Add an existing safe
• ❌ Read-only transaction creation and review Read-only transaction creation and review
• ❌ Safe Apps List Safe Apps List
• ❌ Safe Balances Safe Balances

[katspaugh]

👍

[liliya-soroka]

I would expect to see the address of deleted Guard, as we have for module

[iamacook]

I would expect to see the address of deleted Guard, as we have for module

The CGW does not return this information. Would this be feasible @jpalvarezl? It is not technically feasible.

[francovenica]

It looks fine
Checked in that safe and the "Set guard" "delete guard" labels are there.
Given the comment regarding the delete guard not showing the address of expected.

Note: I don't understand why deleting a guard is actually called "Delete guard" but removing other modules like spending limit is "Disable module" and a complete different tx. Although they are both modules are they treated differently?

EDIT: I always thought that guards were a special case of a module, but it seems is something completely different, so is natural they are show differently in the tx's.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1963190451

• 0 of 5 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• 2 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 35.1%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/routes/safe/components/Transactions/TxList/hooks/useTransactionType.ts	0	2	0.0%
src/routes/safe/components/Transactions/TxList/TxInfoSettings.tsx	0	3	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/routes/safe/components/Transactions/TxList/hooks/useTransactionType.ts	1	1.75%
src/routes/safe/components/Transactions/TxList/TxCollapsed.tsx	1	6.19%

Totals
Change from base Build 1963180825:	-0.03%
Covered Lines:	3407
Relevant Lines:	8769

---

💛 - Coveralls