feat: add auxiliaryFunds + requiredAssets support to eip5792-middleware
#6623
Conversation
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
Member
Author
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
Contributor
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
Member
Author
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
Contributor
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
Member
Author
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
Contributor
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
ffmcgee725
changed the title
auxiliaryFunds + requiredAssets support to eip5792-middleware + initial client integrationauxiliaryFunds + requiredAssets support to eip5792-middleware
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
jiexi
reviewed
Sep 16, 2025
Member
Author
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
Contributor
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
jiexi
previously approved these changes
Sep 17, 2025
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 17, 2025
| if (!isAuxiliaryFundsSupported(chainId)) { | ||
| throw new JsonRpcError( | ||
| EIP7682ErrorCode.UnsupportedChain, | ||
| `The wallet no longer supports auxiliary funds on the requested chain: ${chainId}`, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| `The wallet no longer supports auxiliary funds on the requested chain: ${chainId}`, | |
| `The wallet does not support the auxiliary funds capability on the requested chain: ${chainId}`, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah I see this was what was specified in the ERC https://github.com/ethereum/ERCs/blob/master/ERCS/erc-7682.md#error-codes
🤔 Ok ignore this for now I guess, but I feel like we should change it in the ERC
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ticket for it here https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/WAPI-725
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 17, 2025
| if (!isSupportedAccount) { | ||
| throw new JsonRpcError( | ||
| EIP5792ErrorCode.UnsupportedNonOptionalCapability, | ||
| `Unsupported non-optional capabilities: ${SupportedCapabilities.AuxiliaryFunds}`, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| `Unsupported non-optional capabilities: ${SupportedCapabilities.AuxiliaryFunds}`, | |
| `Unsupported non-optional capability: ${SupportedCapabilities.AuxiliaryFunds}`, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is actually wrong according to the spec: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-5792#error-codes
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 17, 2025
Comment on lines
+27
to
+31
| export enum EIP7682ErrorCode { | ||
| UnsupportedAsset = 5771, | ||
| UnsupportedChain = 5772, | ||
| MalformedRequiredAssets = 5773, | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not make this an object with both codes and messages?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you're following the pattern above with EIP5792ErrorCode...
Weird pattern to decouple message + code IMO
Up to you we could change it here or just do that in the future
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
☝🏾 exactly, following what was previously established. I'm good with refactoring this in a tech debt issue which makes sense when these are moved to @metamask/rpc-errors package. Should I put an issue on our board for moving these out of here and making these objects with both code and messages ?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes lets create a ticket for this 🙏
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 17, 2025
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| ...group[0], | ||
| amount: add0x(totalAmount.toString(16)) as Hex, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmmm do we not have a toHex helper that would also get the typing right?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually add0x already returns an Hex, so we don't need to typecast or use toHex at all.
Member
Author
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
Contributor
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 18, 2025
Comment on lines
621
to
633
| expect(result).toBeDefined(); | ||
| expect(payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.length).toBe( | ||
| 1, | ||
| ); | ||
| expect( | ||
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].amount, | ||
| ).toBe('0x5'); | ||
| expect( | ||
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].address, | ||
| ).toBe('0x123'); | ||
| expect( | ||
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].standard, | ||
| ).toBe('erc20'); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
total nit:
Suggested change
| expect(result).toBeDefined(); | |
| expect(payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.length).toBe( | |
| 1, | |
| ); | |
| expect( | |
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].amount, | |
| ).toBe('0x5'); | |
| expect( | |
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].address, | |
| ).toBe('0x123'); | |
| expect( | |
| payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets?.[0].standard, | |
| ).toBe('erc20'); | |
| expect(result).toBeDefined(); | |
| const requiredAssets = payload.capabilities?.auxiliaryFunds?.requiredAssets; | |
| expect(requiredAssets).toHaveLength(1); | |
| const [asset] = requiredAssets ?? []; | |
| expect(asset).toMatchObject({ | |
| amount: '0x5', | |
| address: '0x123', | |
| standard: 'erc20', | |
| }); |
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 18, 2025
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for (const asset of auxiliaryFunds.requiredAssets) { | ||
| if (asset.standard !== 'erc20') { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a tokenStandard enum we could use here?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see a few competing ones around various modules/repos 🤔
Ok this is fine for now
adonesky1
reviewed
Sep 18, 2025
|
|
||
| const totalAmount = group.reduce((sum, asset) => { | ||
| return sum + BigInt(asset.amount); | ||
| }, 0n); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TIL -> I haven't used BigInt before!
ffmcgee725
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2025
## Explanation Release for `@metamask/eip-5792-middleware` - Add `auxiliaryFunds` + `requiredAssets` support defined under [ERC-7682](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7682) ([#6623](#6623)) - Bump `@metamask/transaction-controller` from `^60.2.0` to `^60.4.0` ([#6561](#6561), [#6641](#6641)) - Bump `@metamask/utils` from `^11.4.2` to `^11.8.0` ([#6588](#6588)) <!-- 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? --> ## 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 --> * Fixes https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/WAPI-409 ## 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/contributing.md#updating-changelogs), highlighting breaking changes as necessary - [ ] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes
7 tasks
aganglada
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2025
…dleware` (#6623) ## Explanation This PR integrates the `auxiliaryFunds` and `requiredAssets` capabilities defined under [ERC-7682](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7682) to enable auxiliary funds flows and improve capability consistency across clients. <!-- 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? --> ## 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 --> * Fixes https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/WAPI-409 ## Checklist - [x] I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate - [x] I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate - [x] I've communicated my changes to consumers by [updating changelogs for packages I've changed](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/contributing.md#updating-changelogs), highlighting breaking changes as necessary - [x] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes
aganglada
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2025
## Explanation Release for `@metamask/eip-5792-middleware` - Add `auxiliaryFunds` + `requiredAssets` support defined under [ERC-7682](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7682) ([#6623](#6623)) - Bump `@metamask/transaction-controller` from `^60.2.0` to `^60.4.0` ([#6561](#6561), [#6641](#6641)) - Bump `@metamask/utils` from `^11.4.2` to `^11.8.0` ([#6588](#6588)) <!-- 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? --> ## 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 --> * Fixes https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/WAPI-409 ## 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/contributing.md#updating-changelogs), highlighting breaking changes as necessary - [ ] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes
Gudahtt
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
| chainIds: Hex[], | ||
| ) => Promise<Record<string, boolean>>; | ||
| /** Function to validate if auxiliary funds capability is supported. */ | ||
| isAuxiliaryFundsSupported: (chainId: Hex) => boolean; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should have been documented as a breaking change
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Explanation
This PR integrates the
auxiliaryFundsandrequiredAssetscapabilities defined under ERC-7682 to enable auxiliary funds flows and improve capability consistency across clients.References
Checklist