fix: re-simulate transactions if security checks fail #4792
Conversation
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
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
matthewwalsh0
requested changes
Oct 14, 2024
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
jpuri
reviewed
Oct 21, 2024
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
matthewwalsh0
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2024
digiwand
reviewed
Oct 28, 2024
digiwand
reviewed
Oct 28, 2024
digiwand
reviewed
Oct 28, 2024
digiwand
reviewed
Oct 28, 2024
digiwand
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2024
OGPoyraz
deleted the
3380-confirmations-fix-for-the-new-simulations-bypass
branch
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
7 tasks
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
OGPoyraz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
<!-- 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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. <!-- 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: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 <!-- If you're making any consumer-facing changes, list those changes here as if you were updating a changelog, using the template below as a guide. (CATEGORY is one of BREAKING, ADDED, CHANGED, DEPRECATED, REMOVED, or FIXED. For security-related issues, follow the Security Advisory process.) Please take care to name the exact pieces of the API you've added or changed (e.g. types, interfaces, functions, or methods). If there are any breaking changes, make sure to offer a solution for consumers to follow once they upgrade to the changes. Finally, if you're only making changes to development scripts or tests, you may replace the template below with "None". --> - **ADDED**: Add mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as `malicious` and the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation. - **ADDED**: Add `changeInSimulationData` property to `simulationData` in order to detect change of simulation data. - [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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate - [X] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Walsh <[email protected]>
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-extension
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track. https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/patch/extension-transaction-controller-37-2-0 [](https://codespaces.new/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/28104?quickstart=1) ## **Related issues** Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 ## **Manual testing steps** TBD ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After**   ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [X] 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). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] 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. --------- Co-authored-by: MetaMask Bot <[email protected]>
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-extension
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track. https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/patch/extension-transaction-controller-37-2-0 [](https://codespaces.new/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/28104?quickstart=1) ## **Related issues** Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 ## **Manual testing steps** TBD ## **Screenshots/Recordings** <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> ### **Before** <!-- [screenshots/recordings] --> ### **After**   ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [X] 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). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] 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. --------- Co-authored-by: MetaMask Bot <[email protected]>
OGPoyraz
added a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-extension
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 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. --> <!-- 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track. https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/patch/extension-transaction-controller-37-2-0 [](https://codespaces.new/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/28104?quickstart=1) Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 TBD <!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change. --> <!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->   - [X] 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). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] 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. - [ ] 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. --------- Co-authored-by: MetaMask Bot <[email protected]>
NicolasMassart
added a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-mobile
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2024
](https://codespaces.new/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/28104?quickstart=1){kind=link}
<!-- 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track - this will eventually be removed in subsequent releases. MetaMask/core@main...patch/mobile-transaction-controller-35-0-0 ## **Related issues** Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 ## **Manual testing steps** Since the changes are in the core - it's already validated in the extension in the transaction lifecycle. But for the sake of risk, all transaction simulations will be rechecked and approval will be needed from QA as we discussed internally. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/42a433d0-7156-4f6d-b45b-fd6cdda712ee ### **Before** NA ### **After** NA ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [X] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.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. --------- Co-authored-by: Nico MASSART <[email protected]>
NicolasMassart
pushed a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-mobile
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track - this will eventually be removed in subsequent releases. MetaMask/core@main...patch/mobile-transaction-controller-35-0-0 ## **Related issues** Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 ## **Manual testing steps** Since the changes are in the core - it's already validated in the extension in the transaction lifecycle. But for the sake of risk, all transaction simulations will be rechecked and approval will be needed from QA as we discussed internally. ## **Screenshots/Recordings** https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/42a433d0-7156-4f6d-b45b-fd6cdda712ee ### **Before** NA ### **After** NA ## **Pre-merge author checklist** - [X] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.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. --------- Co-authored-by: Nico MASSART <[email protected]> # Conflicts: # locales/languages/en.json # patches/@MetaMask+transaction-controller+35.0.0.patch
OGPoyraz
added a commit
to MetaMask/metamask-mobile
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 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. --> <!-- 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? --> This PR aims to add re-simulation logic which recently added at MetaMask/core#4792 Patch note: Transaction controller patch adds the re-simulate feature, branched belove to keep track - this will eventually be removed in subsequent releases. MetaMask/core@main...patch/mobile-transaction-controller-35-0-0 Fixes: MetaMask/MetaMask-planning#3380 Since the changes are in the core - it's already validated in the extension in the transaction lifecycle. But for the sake of risk, all transaction simulations will be rechecked and approval will be needed from QA as we discussed internally. https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/42a433d0-7156-4f6d-b45b-fd6cdda712ee NA NA - [X] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile Coding Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md). - [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability - [X] I’ve included tests if applicable - [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format if applicable - [X] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)). Not required for external contributors. - [ ] 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. --------- Co-authored-by: Nico MASSART <[email protected]>
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 adds a mechanism to re-trigger of simulations if the security provider mark transaction as
maliciousand the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation.References
Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/3380
Changelog
@metamask/transaction-controllermaliciousand the previous simulation native balance change is different then the previous simulation.changeInSimulationDataproperty tosimulationDatain order to detect change of simulation data.Checklist