Conversation
|
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. |
|
Updated and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎
🚮 Removed packages: @metamask/network-controller@12.2.0 |
|
@metamaskbot update-policies |
|
Policies updated |
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #20652 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 68.54% 68.54% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 1029 1030 +1
Lines 41013 41037 +24
Branches 10963 10968 +5
===========================================
+ Hits 28109 28128 +19
- Misses 12904 12909 +5
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Builds ready [3b40e6b]
Page Load Metrics (1568 ± 94 ms)
Bundle size diffs [🚀 Bundle size reduced!]
|
|
We expose
EDIT2: See below |
|
Should we include a migration to remove |
|
@metamaskbot update-policies |
|
Policies updated |
|
@metamaskbot update-policies |
|
Policies updated |
Yeah, we should be tidy. My bad. Added here: 1c3bb66 |
7371e74 to
8979f84
Compare
8979f84 to
bb46c3e
Compare
Builds ready [34fe4b8]
Page Load Metrics (1040 ± 371 ms)
Bundle size diffs [🚨 Warning! Bundle size has increased!]
|
All EVM chains support chain ID. I'm unsure of other chains. I can't think of a good reason not to do this besides not changing things if they aren't broken. This doesn't buy us any new features, just cleans up some tech debt |
| "@metamask/safe-event-emitter": "^2.0.0", | ||
| "@metamask/scure-bip39": "^2.0.3", | ||
| "@metamask/selected-network-controller": "^1.0.0", | ||
| "@metamask/selected-network-controller": "^2.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nit] Just curious, is this required for this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
selected-network-controller v1.0.0 had a peerDep of network-controller ^12.1.2.
v2.0.0 has a peerDep of 13
adonesky1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Obviously a ton of the same little changes here so hard to feel super confident without spending many hours pouring over each one in context. So hoping we can get at least a few more sets of eyes and some thorough QA done before we merge this.
|
@tmashuang do you have some bandwidth to give this a thorough QA? |
|
Thomas and I took another pass on this. I think we're good on the QA side |
Explanation
Wallets shouldn't be directly concerned about the network ID as this more of a p2p concept for gossip. What wallets really care about is chain ID as that is the correct value to use to identify a chain, build transactions, etc. Although these two values usually match (ignoring hex/dec formatting), there are exceptions.
We want to remove usage of networkId and replace it with chainId where appropriate and necessary.
This was a generally straight forward change to make, except for the following cases:
networkVersionon thewindow.ethereumprovider objectmetamaskNetworkIdon TransactionMeta objectsIn both cases, we now use static mappings to assist in covering chainId <-> networkId edge cases.See comments in this PR for more elaboration and the core PR linked below.Screenshots/Screencaps
Before
After
Manual Testing Steps
Pre-merge author checklist
Pre-merge reviewer checklist
If further QA is required (e.g. new feature, complex testing steps, large refactor), add the
Extension QA Boardlabel.In this case, a QA Engineer approval will be be required.