generated from MetaMask/metamask-module-template
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
feat!: add KeyringRequest.origin
#273
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
Open
ccharly
wants to merge
5
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
feat/keyring-request-origin
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8b2c519
feat: add KeyringRequest.origin
ccharly d02787d
feat!: add new RestrictedKeyringClient
ccharly 815d9ca
refactor: rename Restricted -> Public
ccharly 8806bde
refactor: make KeyringPublicClient a true class
ccharly 754a75f
test: re-use tests for the new KeyringPublicClient
ccharly File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you have an idea how we are going to send the real origin? Also, will this new field break the existing Snaps?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point 🤔 I wrongly assumed we were using those methods when interacting through the MetaMask UI, but this will also be called externally with call like
eth_sign*
, in which case, the trueorigin
would not bemetamask
.And yes, this new field might also break existing Snaps. I don't know else I could trick that. My only idea right now would be to "version the API", and have a runtime check on the version, something like:
But even know, we cannot check which methods are being implemented on a Snap, which would result in a runtime error for this ⬆️.
And adding a version won't solve everything, cause we would have type-issue here to (here we need to pass
origin
, or we need to have another variant type forsubmitRequest
with an optionalorigin
, that won't scale well IMO..)