Release/692.0.0

[sahar-fehri]

Explanation

Release of assets-controllers

References

Checklist

• I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've communicated my changes to consumers by updating changelogs for packages I've changed
• I've introduced breaking changes in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them

---

Note

Publishes @metamask/assets-controllers v92.0.0 (optional JWT auth, dep adjustments, fixes) and updates dependent packages to ^92.0.0; bumps monorepo to 692.0.0.

• assets-controllers@92.0.0:
  • Add optional JWT auth for multi‑chain Accounts API calls; propagate token from relevant controllers and include Authorization: Bearer <token> when provided.
  • Move several peer deps to direct deps; note coexistence guidance for clients.
  • Fix TokenBalancesController address casing/state consistency issues.
  • Update changelog links for 92.0.0.
• Dependents:
  • Bump @metamask/assets-controllers to ^92.0.0 in packages/bridge-controller and packages/transaction-pay-controller.
• Repo:
  • Bump root version to 692.0.0.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit e6b00ff. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Bug: Changelog references outdated monorepo release versions

The ## [92.0.0] section in the CHANGELOG references Release 690.0.0 and Release/689.0.0, but the current monorepo version is 692.0.0. These references appear to be stale entries from an earlier release that weren't updated when creating the new version 92.0.0 changelog section, potentially misleading users about which monorepo releases are included in this version bump.

 

[Prithpal-Sooriya]

To discuss, now that these have been moved into dependencies, does this mean we are responsible for bumping other teams packages and/or updating their changelogs?

[cryptodev-2s]

Yes this is still required

[cryptodev-2s]

@sahar-fehri as you’re introducing a breaking change do you have clients PRs ready ?

[cryptodev-2s]

If the token is optional why did you decide to reference this as a breaking change ?

[salimtb]

@cryptodev-2s because a new action will be introduced on the messenger , that's why it's a breaking change

[cryptodev-2s]

Thanks make sense

[salimtb]

@metamaskbot publish-preview