test: add spec signs message with verifyingContract field missing#31630
Merged
DDDDDanica merged 9 commits intomainfrom Apr 10, 2025
Merged
test: add spec signs message with verifyingContract field missing#31630DDDDDanica merged 9 commits intomainfrom
signs message with verifyingContract field missing#31630DDDDDanica merged 9 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
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. |
seaona
commented
Apr 5, 2025
| await openDapp( | ||
| driver, | ||
| null, | ||
| `${DAPP_URL}/request?method=eth_signTypedData_v4¶ms=["${DEFAULT_FIXTURE_ACCOUNT}",{"types":{"EIP712Domain":[{"name":"name","type":"string"},{"name":"chainId","type":"uint256"},{"name":"version","type":"string"}],"Person":[{"name":"name","type":"string"},{"name":"wallets","type":"address[]"}],"Mail":[{"name":"from","type":"Person"},{"name":"to","type":"Person[]"},{"name":"contents","type":"string"},{"name":"attachment","type":"bytes"}]},"primaryType":"Mail","domain":{"chainId":"0x539","name":"Ether Mail","version":"1"},"message":{"contents":"Hello, Bob!","from":{"name":"Cow","wallets":["0xCD2a3d9F938E13CD947Ec05AbC7FE734Df8DD826","0xDeaDbeefdEAdbeefdEadbEEFdeadbeEFdEaDbeeF"]},"to":[{"name":"Bob","wallets":["0xbBbBBBBbbBBBbbbBbbBbbbbBBbBbbbbBbBbbBBbB","0xB0BdaBea57B0BDABeA57b0bdABEA57b0BDabEa57","0xB0B0b0b0b0b0B000000000000000000000000000"]}],"attachment":"0x"}}]`, |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ℹ️ using the same test dapp message for v4 without the verifying contract field. This way, we can use the assertInfoValues method almost identically , with the caveat that now there's not verifying contract field
Collaborator
Builds ready [5d0748d]
UI Startup Metrics (1208 ± 56 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
Collaborator
Builds ready [13feaca]
UI Startup Metrics (1208 ± 66 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
| @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ | |||
| import { Driver } from '../../webdriver/driver'; | |||
|
|
|||
| class TestDappIndividualRequest { | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why does this need to be a class? 🤔
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not "needed" per se, but I'm applying page objects, as we do in the rest of the dapps/screens.
I agree in this case could be too much? but still if this page grows (have more divs/btns), we'll already have it implemented, if that makes sense
https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/tree/main/test/e2e/page-objects/pages
Collaborator
Builds ready [718653a]
UI Startup Metrics (1259 ± 63 ms)
|
Collaborator
Builds ready [48056cd]
UI Startup Metrics (1219 ± 65 ms)
|
Comment on lines
+3
to
+4
| const DAPP_HOST_ADDRESS = '127.0.0.1:8080'; | ||
| const DAPP_URL = `http://${DAPP_HOST_ADDRESS}`; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't those available in the e2e constants file?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
aww yeahh nice catch! I copied the existing code from the test-dapp >.< I've updated both files now
seaona
commented
Apr 9, 2025
|
|
||
| const DAPP_HOST_ADDRESS = '127.0.0.1:8080'; | ||
| const DAPP_URL = `http://${DAPP_HOST_ADDRESS}`; | ||
|
|
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed because of review comment
cryptotavares
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2025
Collaborator
Builds ready [a699053]
UI Startup Metrics (1254 ± 59 ms)
|
seaona
commented
Apr 9, 2025
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any | ||
| async request(method: string, params: any[]) { |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this belongs to the test dapp individual request class, not the test dapp "home" default page, so I've moved it there
chloeYue
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2025
Contributor
|
LGTM ! |
DDDDDanica
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2025
Member
|
Thanks for adding this test! I had started work on this myself, but got distracted by other work. This is a better solution than what I had drafted anyway. |
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
6 participants
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
The typed signatures were broken when we don't pass a verifyingContract value in the message. This was fixed, and now we add a spec to cover this user flow.
PR with the fix: #31613
Related issues
Fixes:
Manual testing steps
Screenshots/Recordings
Before
verifyi9ng-contract-broken.mp4
After
verifyi9ng-contract-working.mp4
Pre-merge author checklist
Pre-merge reviewer checklist