Master sync following v11.10.0 #23075
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
## **Description** Cherry-picks 8ec8643 to the RC. This fixes the `getIsLocked` hook, which would previously always return `false`. We were using the result of `appStateController.isUnlocked`, but that's a function rather than a boolean. Co-authored-by: Maarten Zuidhoorn <maarten@zuidhoorn.com>
## **Description** Cherry-picks 7a3d9e2 (Cancel transaction signing from activity list (#22676)) into Version-v11.10.0 ## **Related issues** Fixes: ## **Manual testing steps** 1. Go to this page... 2. 3. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". ## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist** - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots. Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <matthew.walsh@consensys.net>
… ppom security alert response (#22778) Solves this problem: For people on slow networks, the amount of time it takes from "Dapp button click" -> "Popup notification window appears" might be a problem. When blockaid is toggled off, and the network is throttled to slow via the chrome dev tools, I see a ~3 second worse case for this time, but when blockaid is toggled on, I see a 12 second (or even a bit longer) worst case scenario for this time. The risk here is that users unexpectedly see a longer delay then usual, and so think they need to click the button again, and then get shown multiple confirmation requests and confirm all of them, leading to fund loss. This can happen on either slow internet connections, or if an infura request is taking longer than usual (which could effect people regardless of internet connection). Yesterday when I first saw this issue, I wasn't slowing down my connection, but it still took ~20 seconds to open. Probably a somewhat rare case (because as I mentioned I didn't notice any problems again until I intentionally throttled the network requests), but even if it only affected 10% of users only once a month, that would be enough to get plenty of "why did metamask just take 20 seconds to open a confirmation window?!?" complaints. <!-- Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request, also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following questions: 1. What is the reason for the change? 2. What is the improvement/solution? --> Fixes: 1. Go to this page... 2. 3. <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.
Remove unnecessary resolution for the `socks` package. This removes the risk of the resolution causing problems in future updates, reducing maintenance burdens for the team.
…2692) This PR creates a patch to check for all types of custodian keyrings that start with the prefix `Custody` - [x] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [x] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [x] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [x] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [x] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.
### Cherry pick of #22997 to v11.10.0. That PR's description is below Update the hardfork in the transaction common used to estimate L1 optimism fees to London, fixing display of Layer 1 optimsim fees The bug was that Layer 1 fees were not being displayed on the confirmation screen for transactions on Optimism. This was because `estimatedL1Fees` was null, because `fetchEstimatedL1Fee` was failing, because `TransactionFactory.fromTxData(txParams, { common })` in `buildUnserializedTransaction` was throwing an error, because `txParams` has a `type` === `2`, but EIP-1559 transactions are not supported on the spurious dragon hardfork, which is what was being used in the `common` configuration of that `TransactionFactory.fromTxData` call. This became a problem after https://github.com/MetaMask/core/pull/3817/files. That PR correctly fixed a bug which could result in the transaction type being removed from the `txMeta.txParams` when `addTransaction` in the tx controller was called. With that bug fix, there was now a `type` present on the `txParams` that got passed to the aforementioned `TransactionFactory.fromTxData` call. Prior to that bug fix, there was no `type` on `txParams` at that point, the ethereumjs-tx TransactionFactory was treating these transactions as legacy transactions, and so was constructing a type 0 transaction, and the fact that the hardfork was spurious dragon was not a problem This PR fixes the problem by updating the hardfork param used in the `common` configuration of that `TransactionFactory.fromTxData` call. This should not have a functional effect, as this will cause no change in data and value of the tx passed to the smart contract to generate an fee estimate, except that this may result in more accurate L1 fee estimates (that is not certain though). Fixes: #22945 1. Create a transaction on OP Mainnet 2. Click "Fee details" on the confirmation screen 3. The layer 1 fee details should be visible  - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots. ## **Description** <!-- Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request, also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following questions: 1. What is the reason for the change? 2. What is the improvement/solution? --> ## **Related issues** Fixes: ## **Manual testing steps** 1. Go to this page... 2. 3. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". ## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist** - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.
Adding 11.10.0 changelog
## **Description** Cherry picks: - [[Bug|Feat] blockaid external link clicked metric update (](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/23022/commits/2f5e64c9e9443988dca7a6beea94f1605f44ef9a)https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/22631[)](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/23022/commits/2f5e64c9e9443988dca7a6beea94f1605f44ef9a) [2f5e64c](2f5e64c) - [fix: for realease blocker bugs (](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/23022/commits/9c391caf5b82dc7af3e6fb2459b408f2e90c8ac4)https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/22874[)](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/23022/commits/9c391caf5b82dc7af3e6fb2459b408f2e90c8ac4) ## **Related issues** Fixes: ## **Manual testing steps** 1. Go to this page... 2. 3. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". ## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist** - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots. --------- Signed-off-by: Akintayo A. Olusegun <akintayo.segun@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Ariella Vu <20778143+digiwand@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Olusegun Akintayo <akintayo.segun@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jyoti Puri <jyotipuri@gmail.com>
fix: fix selectedAddress and nftController instantiation (#22856) Noticed that when you freshly import the extension, usse testDapp to deploy and mint an NFT, then manually import the NFT. you will be able to see the NFT. Then when you switch to another account and go back to the account that has the NFT; 1- you wont be able to see the NFTs you imported earlier 2- When you try to import them again you will get an error (fired from core when trying to verify ownership) Noticed that this was due to core having the wrong userAddress to check ownership for, and then in metamask.js, the selectedAddress retrieved does not match the user's selected Address This behavior is also reported to be on v11.10.0, on this issue: #22796 Fixes: #22796 Fixes: #22798 1. Remove and reimport the extension 2. Use testDapp to deploy and mint the NFT 3. Add the NFT manually by clicking "import NFT" 4. You should be able to see your newly import NFT 5. Create new account 6. Go back to the account that has the NFT 7. You should be able to see the NFT you imported <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/assets/10994169/a74cbf0b-014b-4e39-82ac-e8452941fc6e https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/assets/10994169/987dbb27-b938-4bce-9b43-4269d714ee33 - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots. --------- ## **Description** <!-- Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request, also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following questions: 1. What is the reason for the change? 2. What is the improvement/solution? --> ## **Related issues** Fixes: ## **Manual testing steps** 1. Go to this page... 2. 3. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [ ] I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved. - [ ] I've linked related issues - [ ] I've included manual testing steps - [ ] I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable - [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable - [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] I’ve properly set the pull request status: - [ ] In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft". - [ ] In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft". ## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist** - [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed). - [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots. Co-authored-by: sahar-fehri <sahar.fehri@consensys.net> Co-authored-by: Monte Lai <monte.lai@consensys.net>
Version v11.10.0
Contributor
|
CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #23075 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 68.48% 68.48%
========================================
Files 1089 1089
Lines 43015 43015
Branches 11462 11462
========================================
Hits 29455 29455
Misses 13560 13560 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Collaborator
Builds ready [e4a0f40]
Page Load Metrics (961 ± 44 ms)
Bundle size diffs [🚨 Warning! Bundle size has increased!]
|
DDDDDanica
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2024
benjisclowder
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2024
metamaskbot
added
the
release-11.12.0
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Master sync following v11.10.0
Related issues
Fixes:
Manual testing steps
Screenshots/Recordings
Before
After
Pre-merge author checklist
Pre-merge reviewer checklist