Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Add Multichain API to Flask #27782

Open
wants to merge 953 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jiexi
Copy link
Contributor

@jiexi jiexi commented Oct 10, 2024

Description

This branch adds support for the Multichain API to the Flask build of the Extension.

The existing API (via injected provider) should be completely unchanged.

(Very Briefly) What is the MetaMask Multichain API

  • Concurrent connection to any number of chains (no network switching)
  • Unified entry point for all chain ecosystems (EVM, BTC, Solana, Cosmos, Polkadot etc)
  • Accessible (on extension for chromium based browsers) via externally_connectable. Not accessible via an injected global like window.ethereum

Key Documents/Standards

mip = MetaMask Improvement Proposal

  • MIP-5 (Overview of the Multichain API)
    • CAIP-25 (new connection request API)
    • CAIP-27 (new request API, envelope with target scope/chainId included)
  • MIP-6 (Overview of how the Multichain API’s EVM support diverges from the 1193 injected provider)

Manual testing steps

yarn start:flask

Then

(RECOMMENDED) Use the Multichain Test Dapp

OR

Form requests manually

Open in GitHub Codespaces

Pre-merge author checklist

  • I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
  • I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
  • I’ve included tests if applicable
  • I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
  • I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.

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.

Copy link
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.

@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Oct 14, 2024

@metamaskbot update-policies

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Policies updated.
👀 Please review the diff for suspicious new powers.

🧠 Learn how: https://lavamoat.github.io/guides/policy-diff/#what-to-look-for-when-reviewing-a-policy-diff

Copy link

socket-security bot commented Oct 14, 2024

👍 Dependency issues cleared. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

This PR previously contained dependency changes with security issues that have been resolved, removed, or ignored.

View full report↗︎

@shanejonas
Copy link
Contributor

this PR needs the patches from here: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/27847/files#r1801195961

@jiexi jiexi changed the base branch from caip-multichain to caip25-permission-migration October 15, 2024 16:18
@jiexi jiexi changed the title Multichain: migrate to core package feat: CAIP Multichain Oct 15, 2024
@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Oct 15, 2024

REMINDER: check the original feature branch PR for unresolved comments

@jiexi jiexi changed the title feat: CAIP Multichain feat: CAIP Multichain (New) Oct 15, 2024
.circleci/config.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
html-report-caip27/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Oct 15, 2024

TODO: Convert BARAD_DUR flag into flask feature flag

Done here #29003

@shanejonas shanejonas mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2024
7 tasks
adonesky1 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2024
<!--
Please submit this PR as a draft initially.
Do not mark it as "Ready for review" until the template has been
completely filled out, and PR status checks have passed at least once.
-->

## **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?
-->

[![Open in GitHub
Codespaces](https://github.com/codespaces/badge.svg)](https://codespaces.new/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/27940?quickstart=1)

## **Related issues**

Fixes:
#27782 (comment)

## **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 Contributor
Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask
Extension Coding
Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/develop/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md).
- [ ] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
- [ ] 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.

## **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.
@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Oct 17, 2024

@metamaskbot update-policies

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Policies updated.
👀 Please review the diff for suspicious new powers.

🧠 Learn how: https://lavamoat.github.io/guides/policy-diff/#what-to-look-for-when-reviewing-a-policy-diff

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

Copy link

socket-security bot commented Oct 17, 2024

New, updated, and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package New capabilities Transitives Size Publisher
npm/@metamask/[email protected] None 0 1.69 MB metamaskbot
npm/@open-rpc/[email protected] 🔁 npm/@open-rpc/[email protected] Transitive: environment, eval +6 1.4 MB belfordz

🚮 Removed packages: npm/[email protected]

View full report↗︎

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Feb 13, 2025

@metamaskbot update-policies

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Policy update failed. You can review the logs or retry the policy update here

@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Feb 13, 2025

@metamaskbot update-policies

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

No policy changes

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Feb 13, 2025

Note my changes that add and use the TestDappMultichain page object here and here could be more complete, but I don't have enough bandwidth to do as thorough of a job as I'd like. However, the changes I have made should suffice for now. I've made a ticket to track this additional (non-blocking I hope) work

https://github.com/orgs/MetaMask/projects/146/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=97848079&issue=MetaMask%7CMetaMask-planning%7C4204

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jiexi commented Feb 13, 2025

looks like CI is passing now minus api-specs which will pass once this PR gets merged into main

@adonesky1
Copy link
Contributor

@metamaskbot update-policies

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

❌ Multichain API Spec Test Failed. View the report here.

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Collaborator

No policy changes

Copy link
Contributor

@mcmire mcmire left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I finally found some time to look over this, and the core of what we are doing here (which I guess is the middleware) looks recognizable and nothing looks out of place to me. Let me know when the tests pass and I can help approve.

normalizedOptionalScopes,
);

const existsNetworkClientForChainId = (chainId: Hex) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit:

Suggested change
const existsNetworkClientForChainId = (chainId: Hex) => {
const networkClientExistsForChainId = (chainId: Hex) => {

Comment on lines +6781 to 6796
engine.push((req, res, _next, end) => {
const { provider } = this.networkController.getNetworkClientById(
req.networkClientId,
);

// send request to provider
provider.sendAsync(req, (err, providerRes) => {
// forward any error
if (err) {
return end(err);
}
// copy provider response onto original response
Object.assign(res, providerRes);
return end();
});
});
Copy link
Contributor

@mcmire mcmire Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: If this is the right provider, we should be able to use request now instead of sendAsync:

Suggested change
engine.push((req, res, _next, end) => {
const { provider } = this.networkController.getNetworkClientById(
req.networkClientId,
);
// send request to provider
provider.sendAsync(req, (err, providerRes) => {
// forward any error
if (err) {
return end(err);
}
// copy provider response onto original response
Object.assign(res, providerRes);
return end();
});
});
engine.push(async (req, res) => {
const { provider } = this.networkController.getNetworkClientById(
req.networkClientId,
);
res.result = await provider.request(req);
});

// will hang in selenium since it can only do one thing at a time.
// the workaround is to put the response on window.asyncResult and poll for it.
driver.executeScript(
([m, p, g, s, e]: [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: Are there longer names we can give to these variables?

export const createDriverTransport = (driver: Driver) => {
return async (
_: string,
__: string,
Copy link
Contributor

@mcmire mcmire Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: Why is one underscore not enough? 🤔


const existsNetworkClientForChainId = (chainId: Hex) => {
try {
hooks.findNetworkClientIdByChainId(chainId);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not worth changing now, but instead of trying to find a network client ID we could just try to find the presence of the chain ID in the list of network configurations. i.e., NetworkController.getNetworkConfigurationByChainId might be a better candidate to use here (although it doesn't throw, unlike findNetworkClientIdByChainId).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants