[pull] main from MetaMask:main#573
Merged
pull[bot] merged 5 commits intoReality2byte:mainfrom May 8, 2026
Merged
Conversation
## Explanation <!-- Thanks for your contribution! Take a moment to answer these questions so that reviewers have the information they need to properly understand your changes: * What is the current state of things and why does it need to change? * What is the solution your changes offer and how does it work? * Are there any changes whose purpose might not obvious to those unfamiliar with the domain? * If your primary goal was to update one package but you found you had to update another one along the way, why did you do so? * If you had to upgrade a dependency, why did you do so? --> A recent commit changed the `update-changelog` workflow so that instead of checking out the release PR branch directly, it checks out the base branch and then overlays files from the release PR that are necessary to run `auto-changelog validate`. Currently, only changelogs are copied from the release PR. However, to determine which dependency bump changelog entries are missing, the `auto-changelog validate` command needs not only changelogs but also package manifests. This commit fixes the `update-changelog` workflow accordingly. ## References <!-- Are there any issues that this pull request is tied to? Are there other links that reviewers should consult to understand these changes better? Are there client or consumer pull requests to adopt any breaking changes? For example: * Fixes #12345 * Related to #67890 --> ## 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](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Low Risk** > Low risk workflow-only change that adjusts which files are checked out/committed and how a commit SHA is captured; main risk is unintended CI behavior or pushes to PR branches. > > **Overview** > Fixes the `update-changelogs` GitHub Actions workflow to overlay and temporarily commit both `**/CHANGELOG.md` *and* `**/package.json` from the PR branch before running `yarn changelog:validate --checkDeps`, ensuring dependency-bump validation uses the PR’s manifests. > > Also updates the workflow to output the full commit SHA (`%H`) for the generated changelog-fix commit, and renames the related steps to reflect the broader file overlay/commit. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit bd50247. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
## @metamask/chain-agnostic-permission ## [1.6.0] ### Added - Add `Eip1193Compatible` property in `KnownSessionProperties` enum to support EIP-1193-style connections established through `connect-evm` ([#8731](#8731)) - Set `sessionProperties: { 'eip1193-compatible': true }` in `getCaip25PermissionFromLegacyPermissions` so that legacy EIP-1193 permission requests are tagged as EIP-1193-compatible ([#8731](#8731)) ### Changed - Bump `@metamask/permission-controller` from `^12.2.1` to `^13.1.0` ([#8317](#8317), [#8661](#8661), [#8722](#8722)) - Bump `@metamask/controller-utils` from `^11.19.0` to `^11.20.0` ([#8344](#8344)) ## @metamask/multichain-api-middleware ## [3.1.0] ### Changed - Bump `@metamask/chain-agnostic-permission` from `^1.5.0` to `^1.6.0` ([#8290](#8749)) - Bump `@metamask/multichain-transactions-controller` from `^7.0.4` to `^7.1.0` ([#8665](#8665)) - Bump `@metamask/accounts-controller` from `^37.2.0` to `^38.0.0` ([#8665](#8665)) - Bump `@metamask/permission-controller` from `^13.0.0` to `^13.1.0` ([#8722](#8722)) - Bump `@metamask/json-rpc-engine` from `^10.3.0` to `^10.4.0` ([#8746](#8746)) <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Low Risk** > Primarily version/changelog updates and dependency range bumps; no functional source changes are included in this diff, so runtime risk is low aside from typical release packaging/versioning issues. > > **Overview** > Bumps the monorepo release version to `971.0.0` and publishes new package versions for `@metamask/chain-agnostic-permission` (`1.6.0`) and `@metamask/multichain-api-middleware` (`3.1.0`). > > Updates changelogs and lockfile, and bumps downstream dependencies (`@metamask/eip1193-permission-middleware` and `@metamask/multichain-api-middleware`) to consume `@metamask/chain-agnostic-permission@^1.6.0`. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit 90d6560. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
## Explanation <!-- Thanks for your contribution! Take a moment to answer these questions so that reviewers have the information they need to properly understand your changes: * What is the current state of things and why does it need to change? * What is the solution your changes offer and how does it work? * Are there any changes whose purpose might not obvious to those unfamiliar with the domain? * If your primary goal was to update one package but you found you had to update another one along the way, why did you do so? * If you had to upgrade a dependency, why did you do so? --> When TypeScript type-checks arguments to `Messenger.delegate` and `Messenger.revoke` it can produce the error "Expression produces a union type that is too complex to represent" if the delegatee contains a large number of capabilities and/or there are large number of capabilities being delegated or revoked. This happens because when TypeScript evaluates `MessengerActions<Delegatee> & Action` or `MessengerEvents<Delegatee> & Event` it needs to recursively compute every combination of action/event type — handlers, types used within handlers, everything. The possibility of this error has always been present, but was excerbated by recent changes to the `InternalAccount` type in `keyring-api`, which added support for Tron and Stellar. All of this computing is wasteful. All we really need is an intersection of action/event type strings. This commit changes the types for `DelegatedActions` and `DelegatedEvents` to reflect this fact. These changes should be type-compatible since the end result is still the same. ## References <!-- Are there any issues that this pull request is tied to? Are there other links that reviewers should consult to understand these changes better? Are there client or consumer pull requests to adopt any breaking changes? For example: * Fixes #12345 * Related to #67890 --> Recently a change was made in Mobile to work around this problem. See: MetaMask/metamask-mobile#29621 ## 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](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Medium Risk** > Public TypeScript API typings for `Messenger.delegate`/`Messenger.revoke` change, which could affect downstream type-checking even though runtime behavior is untouched. Risk is limited to compile-time compatibility and inference/regression in complex consumer typings. > > **Overview** > Reduces TypeScript type-checker blowups in `Messenger.delegate` and `Messenger.revoke` by narrowing `DelegatedActions`/`DelegatedEvents` to intersections of action/event **type strings** (rather than intersecting full action/event unions), aiming to avoid TS2590 “union type too complex” errors. > > Updates the messenger package changelog to note the fix under *Unreleased*. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit cdf1305. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
## Explanation <!-- Thanks for your contribution! Take a moment to answer these questions so that reviewers have the information they need to properly understand your changes: * What is the current state of things and why does it need to change? * What is the solution your changes offer and how does it work? * Are there any changes whose purpose might not obvious to those unfamiliar with the domain? * If your primary goal was to update one package but you found you had to update another one along the way, why did you do so? * If you had to upgrade a dependency, why did you do so? --> When an engineer opens a release PR, they may want to make additional changes to the release plan before they are ready to open the PR, and so they may not want to populate dependency bump entries across changelogs right away. To account for this, this commit modifies the `update-changelogs` workflow so that the initial run only occurs if the PR is created in non-draft status or is taken out of draft otherwise. ## References <!-- Are there any issues that this pull request is tied to? Are there other links that reviewers should consult to understand these changes better? Are there client or consumer pull requests to adopt any breaking changes? For example: * Fixes #12345 * Related to #67890 --> ## 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](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Low Risk** > Low risk workflow gating change; it only adjusts when the GitHub Actions job runs and does not affect production code paths. > > **Overview** > Updates the `update-changelogs` GitHub Actions workflow to **not run automatically for draft PRs**. > > The workflow now triggers on `pull_request_target` `ready_for_review` and tightens the `is-fork` job condition so the initial run only occurs when the PR is *not* a draft (while still allowing manual runs via `@metamaskbot update-changelogs` comments). > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit f8a1fc0. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
…onfig with remote feature flag subscription (#8742) ## Explanation <!-- Thanks for your contribution! Take a moment to answer these questions so that reviewers have the information they need to properly understand your changes: * What is the current state of things and why does it need to change? * What is the solution your changes offer and how does it work? * Are there any changes whose purpose might not obvious to those unfamiliar with the domain? * If your primary goal was to update one package but you found you had to update another one along the way, why did you do so? * If you had to upgrade a dependency, why did you do so? --> This PR updates the `@metamask/money-account-balance-service` to use a remote vault config instead of constructor args. ## References <!-- Are there any issues that this pull request is tied to? Are there other links that reviewers should consult to understand these changes better? Are there client or consumer pull requests to adopt any breaking changes? For example: * Fixes #12345 * Related to #67890 --> - [MUSD-681: Support remote vault config feature flag in Money Balance Service](https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/MUSD-681) ## 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](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Medium Risk** > Breaking API changes shift vault configuration from constructor args to `RemoteFeatureFlagController` state and alter response shapes, which can break consumers and affect balance/APY lookups until flags are available. Runtime behavior now depends on async flag delivery and validation, adding new error paths and cache invalidation logic. > > **Overview** > Refactors `MoneyAccountBalanceService` to **stop taking vault config in the constructor** and instead `init()`/subscribe to `RemoteFeatureFlagController` (`getState` + `stateChange`) for a remote `moneyAccountVaultConfig`, throwing `VaultConfigNotAvailableError` until a valid config is present and routing malformed configs via `VaultConfigValidationError`. > > Updates on-chain/API fetching to use the new config shape (`boringVault`, `chainId`, `lensAddress`, `tellerAddress`, etc.), including switching `getMusdEquivalentValue` to call the Lens contract’s `balanceOfInAssets` and tightening `getVaultApy` to error when the chain ID lacks a `VEDA_API_NETWORK_NAMES` mapping (adds Monad). Adds corresponding structs/types, logging, exports, dependency on `@metamask/remote-feature-flag-controller`, and extensive test coverage for config lifecycle and cache invalidation. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit 5e603a6. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
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.
3 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.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.4)
Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )