Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
const path = require('path');
|
Exclude files from builds by build type (#12521)
This PR enables the exclusion of JavaScript and JSON source by `buildType`, and enables the running of `eslint` under LavaMoat. 80-90% of the changes in this PR are `.patch` files and LavaMoat policy additions.
The file exclusion is designed to work in conjunction with our code fencing. If you forget to fence an import statement of an excluded file, the application will now error on boot. **This PR commits us to a particular naming convention for files intended only for certain builds.** Continue reading for details.
### Code Fencing and ESLint
When a file is modified by the code fencing transform, we run ESLint on it to ensure that we fail early for syntax-related issues. This PR adds the first code fences that will be actually be removed in production builds. As a consequence, this was also the first time we attempted to run ESLint under LavaMoat. Making that work required a lot of manual labor because of ESLint's use of dynamic imports, but the manual changes necessary were ultimately quite minor.
### File Exclusion
For all builds, any file in `app/`, `shared/` or `ui/` in a sub-directory matching `**/${otherBuildType}/**` (where `otherBuildType` is any build type except `main`) will be added to the list of excluded files, regardless of its file extension. For example, if we want to add one or more pages to the UI settings in Flask, we'd create the folder `ui/pages/settings/flask`, add any necessary files or sub-folders there, and fence the import statements for anything in that folder. If we wanted the same thing for Beta, we would name the directory `ui/pages/settings/beta`.
As it happens, we already organize some of our source files in this way, namely the logo JSON for Beta and Flask builds. See `ui/helpers/utils/build-types.js` to see how this works in practice.
Because the list of ignored filed is only passed to `browserify.exclude()`, any files not bundled by `browserify` will be ignored. For our purposes, this is mostly relevant for `.scss`. Since we don't have anything like code fencing for SCSS, we'll have to consider how to handle our styles separately.
3 years ago
|
|
|
const { version: reactVersion } = require('react/package.json');
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
module.exports = {
|
|
|
|
|
root: true,
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
// Ignore files which are also in .prettierignore
|
|
|
|
|
ignorePatterns: [
|
|
|
|
|
'app/vendor/**',
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'builds/**/*',
|
|
|
|
|
'development/chromereload.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'dist/**/*',
|
|
|
|
|
'node_modules/**/*',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
overrides: [
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* == Modules ==
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The first two sections here, which cover module syntax, are mutually
|
|
|
|
|
* exclusive: the set of files covered between them may NOT overlap. This is
|
|
|
|
|
* because we do not allow a file to use two different styles for specifying
|
|
|
|
|
* imports and exports (however theoretically possible it may be).
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Modules (CommonJS module syntax)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This is code that uses `require()` and `module.exports` to import and
|
|
|
|
|
* export other modules.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'.eslintrc.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'.eslintrc.*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'.mocharc.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'*.config.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'development/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/e2e/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/helpers/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/lib/wait-until-called.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: [
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.base.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.node.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.babel.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.typescript-compat.js'),
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
sourceType: 'module',
|
Add build-time code exclusion using code fencing (#12060)
This PR adds build-time code exclusion by means of code fencing. For details, please see the README in `./development/build/transforms`. Note that linting of transformed files as a form of validation is added in a follow-up, #12075.
Hopefully exhaustive tests are added to ensure that the transform works according to its specification. Since these tests are Node-only, they required their own Jest config. The recommended way to work with multiple Jest configs is using the `projects` field in the Jest config, however [that feature breaks coverage collection](https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9628). That being the case, I had to set up two separate Jest configs. In order to get both test suites to run in parallel, Jest is now invoked via a script, `./test/run-jest.sh`.
By way of example, this build system feature allows us to add fences like this:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
///: BEGIN:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN(beta)
PluginController: this.pluginController,
///: END:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN
});
```
Which at build time are transformed to the following if the build type is not `beta`:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
});
```
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
3 years ago
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
rules: {
|
|
|
|
|
// This rule does not work with CommonJS modules. We will just have to
|
|
|
|
|
// trust that all of the files specified above are indeed modules.
|
|
|
|
|
'import/unambiguous': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
settings: {
|
|
|
|
|
'import/resolver': {
|
|
|
|
|
// When determining the location of a `require()` call, use Node's
|
|
|
|
|
// resolution algorithm, then fall back to TypeScript's. This allows
|
|
|
|
|
// TypeScript files (which Node's algorithm doesn't recognize) to be
|
|
|
|
|
// imported from JavaScript files, while also preventing issues when
|
|
|
|
|
// using packages like `prop-types` (where we would otherwise get "No
|
|
|
|
|
// default export found in imported module 'prop-types'" from
|
|
|
|
|
// TypeScript because imports work differently there).
|
|
|
|
|
node: {},
|
|
|
|
|
typescript: {
|
|
|
|
|
// Always try to resolve types under `<root>/@types` directory even
|
|
|
|
|
// it doesn't contain any source code, like `@types/unist`
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysTryTypes: true,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Modules (ES module syntax)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This is code that explicitly uses `import`/`export` instead of
|
|
|
|
|
* `require`/`module.exports`.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'app/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'shared/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/lib/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/mocks/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/jest/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/stub/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/unit-global/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Convert these files to modern JS
|
|
|
|
|
excludedFiles: ['test/lib/wait-until-called.js'],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: [
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.base.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.node.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.babel.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.typescript-compat.js'),
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
sourceType: 'module',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
settings: {
|
|
|
|
|
'import/resolver': {
|
|
|
|
|
// When determining the location of an `import`, use Node's resolution
|
|
|
|
|
// algorithm, then fall back to TypeScript's. This allows TypeScript
|
|
|
|
|
// files (which Node's algorithm doesn't recognize) to be imported
|
|
|
|
|
// from JavaScript files, while also preventing issues when using
|
|
|
|
|
// packages like `prop-types` (where we would otherwise get "No
|
|
|
|
|
// default export found in imported module 'prop-types'" from
|
|
|
|
|
// TypeScript because imports work differently there).
|
|
|
|
|
node: {},
|
|
|
|
|
typescript: {
|
|
|
|
|
// Always try to resolve types under `<root>/@types` directory even
|
|
|
|
|
// it doesn't contain any source code, like `@types/unist`
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysTryTypes: true,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* TypeScript files
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: ['*.{ts,tsx}'],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: [
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.base.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
'@metamask/eslint-config-typescript',
|
|
|
|
|
path.resolve(__dirname, '.eslintrc.typescript-compat.js'),
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
|
|
|
|
// Turn these off, as it's recommended by typescript-eslint.
|
|
|
|
|
// See: <https://typescript-eslint.io/docs/linting/troubleshooting#eslint-plugin-import>
|
|
|
|
|
'import/named': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'import/namespace': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'import/default': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'import/no-named-as-default-member': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Disabled due to incompatibility with Record<string, unknown>.
|
|
|
|
|
// See: <https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/15300#issuecomment-702872440>
|
|
|
|
|
'@typescript-eslint/consistent-type-definitions': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Modified to include the 'ignoreRestSiblings' option.
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Migrate this rule change back into `@metamask/eslint-config`
|
|
|
|
|
'@typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars': [
|
|
|
|
|
'error',
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
vars: 'all',
|
|
|
|
|
args: 'all',
|
|
|
|
|
argsIgnorePattern: '[_]+',
|
|
|
|
|
ignoreRestSiblings: true,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
settings: {
|
|
|
|
|
'import/resolver': {
|
|
|
|
|
// When determining the location of an `import`, prefer TypeScript's
|
|
|
|
|
// resolution algorithm. Note that due to how we've configured
|
|
|
|
|
// TypeScript in `tsconfig.json`, we are able to import JavaScript
|
|
|
|
|
// files from TypeScript files.
|
|
|
|
|
typescript: {
|
|
|
|
|
// Always try to resolve types under `<root>/@types` directory even
|
|
|
|
|
// it doesn't contain any source code, like `@types/unist`
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysTryTypes: true,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: ['*.d.ts'],
|
|
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
sourceType: 'script',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* == Everything else ==
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The sections from here on out may overlap with each other in various
|
|
|
|
|
* ways depending on their function.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* React-specific code
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Code in this category contains JSX and hence needs to be run through the
|
|
|
|
|
* React plugin.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'test/lib/render-helpers.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/jest/rendering.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: ['plugin:react/recommended', 'plugin:react-hooks/recommended'],
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
ecmaFeatures: {
|
|
|
|
|
jsx: true,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
plugins: ['react'],
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
|
|
|
|
'react/no-unused-prop-types': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
'react/no-unused-state': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
'react/jsx-boolean-value': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
'react/jsx-curly-brace-presence': [
|
|
|
|
|
'error',
|
|
|
|
|
{ props: 'never', children: 'never' },
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
'react/no-deprecated': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
'react/default-props-match-prop-types': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
'react/jsx-no-duplicate-props': 'error',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
settings: {
|
|
|
|
|
react: {
|
|
|
|
|
// If this is set to 'detect', ESLint will import React in order to
|
|
|
|
|
// find its version. Because we run ESLint in the build system under
|
|
|
|
|
// LavaMoat, this means that detecting the React version requires a
|
|
|
|
|
// LavaMoat policy for all of React, in the build system. That's a
|
|
|
|
|
// no-go, so we grab it from React's package.json.
|
|
|
|
|
version: reactVersion,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Mocha tests
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* These are files that make use of globals and syntax introduced by the
|
|
|
|
|
* Mocha library.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/lib/wait-until-called.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/e2e/**/*.spec.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
excludedFiles: [
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'app/scripts/controllers/network/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/controllers/permissions/**/*.test.js',
|
Permission System 2.0 (#12243)
# Permission System 2.0
## Background
This PR migrates the extension permission system to [the new `PermissionController`](https://github.com/MetaMask/snaps-skunkworks/tree/main/packages/controllers/src/permissions).
The original permission system, based on [`rpc-cap`](https://github.com/MetaMask/rpc-cap), introduced [`ZCAP-LD`](https://w3c-ccg.github.io/zcap-ld/)-like permissions to our JSON-RPC stack.
We used it to [implement](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/7004) what we called "LoginPerSite" in [version 7.7.0](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/releases/tag/v7.7.0) of the extension, which enabled the user to choose which accounts, if any, should be exposed to each dapp.
While that was a worthwhile feature in and of itself, we wanted a permission _system_ in order to enable everything we are going to with Snaps.
Unfortunately, the original permission system was difficult to use, and necessitated the creation of the original `PermissionsController` (note the "s"), which was more or less a wrapper for `rpc-cap`.
With this PR, we shake off the yoke of the original permission system, in favor of the modular, self-contained, ergonomic, and more mature permission system 2.0.
Note that [the `PermissionController` readme](https://github.com/MetaMask/snaps-skunkworks/tree/main/packages/controllers/src/permissions/README.md) explains how the new permission system works.
The `PermissionController` and `SubjectMetadataController` are currently shipped via `@metamask/snap-controllers`. This is a temporary state of affairs, and we'll move them to `@metamask/controllers` once they've landed in prod.
## Changes in Detail
First, the changes in this PR are not as big as they seem. Roughly half of the additions in this PR are fixtures in the test for the new migration (number 68), and a significant portion of the remaining ~2500 lines are due to find-and-replace changes in other test fixtures and UI files.
- The extension `PermissionsController` has been deleted, and completely replaced with the new `PermissionController` from [`@metamask/snap-controllers`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@metamask/snap-controllers).
- The original `PermissionsController` "domain metadata" functionality is now managed by the new `SubjectMetadataController`, also from [`@metamask/snap-controllers`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@metamask/snap-controllers).
- The permission activity and history log controller has been renamed `PermissionLogController` and has its own top-level state key, but is otherwise functionally equivalent to the existing implementation.
- Migration number 68 has been added to account for the new state changes.
- The tests in `app/scripts/controllers/permissions` have been migrated from `mocha` to `jest`.
Reviewers should focus their attention on the following files:
- `app/scripts/`
- `metamask-controller.js`
- This is where most of the integration work for the new `PermissionController` occurs.
Some functions that were internal to the original controller were moved here.
- `controllers/permissions/`
- `selectors.js`
- These selectors are for `ControllerMessenger` selector subscriptions. The actual subscriptions occur in `metamask-controller.js`. See the `ControllerMessenger` implementation for details.
- `specifications.js`
- The caveat and permission specifications are required by the new `PermissionController`, and are used to specify the `eth_accounts` permission and its JSON-RPC method implementation.
See the `PermissionController` readme for details.
- `migrations/068.js`
- The new state should be cross-referenced with the controllers that manage it.
The accompanying tests should also be thoroughly reviewed.
Some files may appear new but have just moved and/or been renamed:
- `app/scripts/lib/rpc-method-middleware/handlers/request-accounts.js`
- This was previously implemented in `controllers/permissions/permissionsMethodMiddleware.js`.
- `test/mocks/permissions.js`
- A truncated version of `test/mocks/permission-controller.js`.
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
3 years ago
|
|
|
'app/scripts/lib/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/migrations/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/platforms/*.test.js',
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'development/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'shared/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/__mocks__/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: ['@metamask/eslint-config-mocha'],
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
// In Mocha tests, it is common to use `this` to store values or do
|
|
|
|
|
// things like force the test to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
'@babel/no-invalid-this': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'mocha/no-setup-in-describe': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Jest tests
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* These are files that make use of globals and syntax introduced by the
|
|
|
|
|
* Jest library.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Increase Jest unit test coverage for the Swaps feature to ~25% (#10900)
* Swaps: Show a network name dynamically in a tooltip
* Replace “Ethereum” with “$1”, change “Test” to “Testnet”
* Replace 이더리움 with $1
* Translate network names, use ‘Ethereum’ by default if a translation is not available yet
* Reorder messages to resolve ESLint issues
* Add a snapshot test for the FeeCard component, increase Jest threshold
* Enable snapshot testing into external .snap files in ESLint
* Add the “networkNameEthereum” key in ko/messages.json, remove default “Ethereum” value
* Throw an error if chain ID is not supported by the Swaps feature
* Use string literals when calling the `t` fn,
* Watch Jest tests silently (no React warnings in terminal, only errors)
* Add @testing-library/jest-dom, import it before running Jest tests
* Add snapshot testing of Swaps’ React components for happy paths, increase minimum threshold for Jest
* Add the test/jest folder for Jest setup and shared functions, use it in Swaps Jest tests
* Fix ESLint issues, update linting config
* Enable ESLint for .snap files (Jest snapshots), throw an error if a snapshot is bigger than 50 lines
* Don’t run lint:fix for .snap files
* Move `createProps` outside of `describe` blocks, move store creation inside tests
* Use translations instead of keys, update a rendering function to load translations
* Make sure all Jest snapshots are shorter than 50 lines (default limit)
* Add / update props for Swaps tests
* Fix React warnings when running tests for Swaps
4 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
Add build-time code exclusion using code fencing (#12060)
This PR adds build-time code exclusion by means of code fencing. For details, please see the README in `./development/build/transforms`. Note that linting of transformed files as a form of validation is added in a follow-up, #12075.
Hopefully exhaustive tests are added to ensure that the transform works according to its specification. Since these tests are Node-only, they required their own Jest config. The recommended way to work with multiple Jest configs is using the `projects` field in the Jest config, however [that feature breaks coverage collection](https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9628). That being the case, I had to set up two separate Jest configs. In order to get both test suites to run in parallel, Jest is now invoked via a script, `./test/run-jest.sh`.
By way of example, this build system feature allows us to add fences like this:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
///: BEGIN:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN(beta)
PluginController: this.pluginController,
///: END:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN
});
```
Which at build time are transformed to the following if the build type is not `beta`:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
});
```
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
3 years ago
|
|
|
files: [
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'**/__snapshots__/*.snap',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/controllers/network/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/controllers/permissions/**/*.test.js',
|
Permission System 2.0 (#12243)
# Permission System 2.0
## Background
This PR migrates the extension permission system to [the new `PermissionController`](https://github.com/MetaMask/snaps-skunkworks/tree/main/packages/controllers/src/permissions).
The original permission system, based on [`rpc-cap`](https://github.com/MetaMask/rpc-cap), introduced [`ZCAP-LD`](https://w3c-ccg.github.io/zcap-ld/)-like permissions to our JSON-RPC stack.
We used it to [implement](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/7004) what we called "LoginPerSite" in [version 7.7.0](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/releases/tag/v7.7.0) of the extension, which enabled the user to choose which accounts, if any, should be exposed to each dapp.
While that was a worthwhile feature in and of itself, we wanted a permission _system_ in order to enable everything we are going to with Snaps.
Unfortunately, the original permission system was difficult to use, and necessitated the creation of the original `PermissionsController` (note the "s"), which was more or less a wrapper for `rpc-cap`.
With this PR, we shake off the yoke of the original permission system, in favor of the modular, self-contained, ergonomic, and more mature permission system 2.0.
Note that [the `PermissionController` readme](https://github.com/MetaMask/snaps-skunkworks/tree/main/packages/controllers/src/permissions/README.md) explains how the new permission system works.
The `PermissionController` and `SubjectMetadataController` are currently shipped via `@metamask/snap-controllers`. This is a temporary state of affairs, and we'll move them to `@metamask/controllers` once they've landed in prod.
## Changes in Detail
First, the changes in this PR are not as big as they seem. Roughly half of the additions in this PR are fixtures in the test for the new migration (number 68), and a significant portion of the remaining ~2500 lines are due to find-and-replace changes in other test fixtures and UI files.
- The extension `PermissionsController` has been deleted, and completely replaced with the new `PermissionController` from [`@metamask/snap-controllers`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@metamask/snap-controllers).
- The original `PermissionsController` "domain metadata" functionality is now managed by the new `SubjectMetadataController`, also from [`@metamask/snap-controllers`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@metamask/snap-controllers).
- The permission activity and history log controller has been renamed `PermissionLogController` and has its own top-level state key, but is otherwise functionally equivalent to the existing implementation.
- Migration number 68 has been added to account for the new state changes.
- The tests in `app/scripts/controllers/permissions` have been migrated from `mocha` to `jest`.
Reviewers should focus their attention on the following files:
- `app/scripts/`
- `metamask-controller.js`
- This is where most of the integration work for the new `PermissionController` occurs.
Some functions that were internal to the original controller were moved here.
- `controllers/permissions/`
- `selectors.js`
- These selectors are for `ControllerMessenger` selector subscriptions. The actual subscriptions occur in `metamask-controller.js`. See the `ControllerMessenger` implementation for details.
- `specifications.js`
- The caveat and permission specifications are required by the new `PermissionController`, and are used to specify the `eth_accounts` permission and its JSON-RPC method implementation.
See the `PermissionController` readme for details.
- `migrations/068.js`
- The new state should be cross-referenced with the controllers that manage it.
The accompanying tests should also be thoroughly reviewed.
Some files may appear new but have just moved and/or been renamed:
- `app/scripts/lib/rpc-method-middleware/handlers/request-accounts.js`
- This was previously implemented in `controllers/permissions/permissionsMethodMiddleware.js`.
- `test/mocks/permissions.js`
- A truncated version of `test/mocks/permission-controller.js`.
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
3 years ago
|
|
|
'app/scripts/lib/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/migrations/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/platforms/*.test.js',
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'development/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'shared/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/jest/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/helpers/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/**/*.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'ui/__mocks__/*.js',
|
Add build-time code exclusion using code fencing (#12060)
This PR adds build-time code exclusion by means of code fencing. For details, please see the README in `./development/build/transforms`. Note that linting of transformed files as a form of validation is added in a follow-up, #12075.
Hopefully exhaustive tests are added to ensure that the transform works according to its specification. Since these tests are Node-only, they required their own Jest config. The recommended way to work with multiple Jest configs is using the `projects` field in the Jest config, however [that feature breaks coverage collection](https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9628). That being the case, I had to set up two separate Jest configs. In order to get both test suites to run in parallel, Jest is now invoked via a script, `./test/run-jest.sh`.
By way of example, this build system feature allows us to add fences like this:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
///: BEGIN:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN(beta)
PluginController: this.pluginController,
///: END:ONLY_INCLUDE_IN
});
```
Which at build time are transformed to the following if the build type is not `beta`:
```javascript
this.store.updateStructure({
...,
GasFeeController: this.gasFeeController,
TokenListController: this.tokenListController,
});
```
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
3 years ago
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
extends: ['@metamask/eslint-config-jest'],
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
sourceType: 'module',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
Increase Jest unit test coverage for the Swaps feature to ~25% (#10900)
* Swaps: Show a network name dynamically in a tooltip
* Replace “Ethereum” with “$1”, change “Test” to “Testnet”
* Replace 이더리움 with $1
* Translate network names, use ‘Ethereum’ by default if a translation is not available yet
* Reorder messages to resolve ESLint issues
* Add a snapshot test for the FeeCard component, increase Jest threshold
* Enable snapshot testing into external .snap files in ESLint
* Add the “networkNameEthereum” key in ko/messages.json, remove default “Ethereum” value
* Throw an error if chain ID is not supported by the Swaps feature
* Use string literals when calling the `t` fn,
* Watch Jest tests silently (no React warnings in terminal, only errors)
* Add @testing-library/jest-dom, import it before running Jest tests
* Add snapshot testing of Swaps’ React components for happy paths, increase minimum threshold for Jest
* Add the test/jest folder for Jest setup and shared functions, use it in Swaps Jest tests
* Fix ESLint issues, update linting config
* Enable ESLint for .snap files (Jest snapshots), throw an error if a snapshot is bigger than 50 lines
* Don’t run lint:fix for .snap files
* Move `createProps` outside of `describe` blocks, move store creation inside tests
* Use translations instead of keys, update a rendering function to load translations
* Make sure all Jest snapshots are shorter than 50 lines (default limit)
* Add / update props for Swaps tests
* Fix React warnings when running tests for Swaps
4 years ago
|
|
|
'import/unambiguous': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'import/named': 'off',
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
'jest/no-large-snapshots': [
|
|
|
|
|
'error',
|
|
|
|
|
{ maxSize: 50, inlineMaxSize: 50 },
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
'jest/no-restricted-matchers': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Migrations
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: ['app/scripts/migrations/*.js', '**/*.stories.js'],
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
|
|
|
|
'import/no-anonymous-default-export': ['error', { allowObject: true }],
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Executables and related files
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* These are files that run in a Node context. They are either designed to
|
|
|
|
|
* run as executables (in which case they will have a shebang at the top) or
|
|
|
|
|
* are dependencies of executables (in which case they may use
|
|
|
|
|
* `process.exit` to exit).
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'development/**/*.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/e2e/benchmark.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/helpers/setup-helper.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
rules: {
|
|
|
|
|
'node/no-process-exit': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
'node/shebang': 'off',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* Lockdown files
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: [
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/lockdown-run.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'app/scripts/lockdown-more.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/helpers/protect-intrinsics-helpers.js',
|
|
|
|
|
'test/unit-global/protect-intrinsics.test.js',
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
globals: {
|
|
|
|
|
harden: 'readonly',
|
|
|
|
|
Compartment: 'readonly',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
files: ['app/scripts/lockdown-run.js', 'app/scripts/lockdown-more.js'],
|
|
|
|
|
parserOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
sourceType: 'script',
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
Refactor ESLint config (#13482)
We would like to insert TypeScript into the ESLint configuration, and
because of the way that the current config is organized, that is not
easy to do.
Most files are assumed to be files that are suited for running in a
browser context. This isn't correct, as we should expect most files to
work in a Node context instead. This is because all browser-based files
will be run through a transpiler that is able to make use of
Node-specific variables anyway.
There are a couple of important ways we can categories files which our
ESLint config should be capable of handling well:
* Is the file a script or a module? In other words, does the file run
procedurally or is the file intended to be brought into an existing
file?
* If the file is a module, does it use the CommonJS syntax (`require()`)
or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
When we introduce TypeScript, this set of questions will become:
* Is the file a script or a module?
* If the file is a module, is it a JavaScript module or a TypeScript
module?
* If the file is a JavaScript module, does it use the CommonJS syntax
(`require()`) or does it use the ES syntax (`import`/`export`)?
To represent these divisions, this commit removes global rules — so now
all of the rules are kept in `overrides` for explicitness — and sets up
rules for CommonJS- and ES-module-compatible files that intentionally do
not overlap with each other. This way TypeScript (which has its own set
of rules independent from JavaScript and therefore shouldn't overlap
with the other rules either) can be easily added later.
Finally, this commit splits up the ESLint config into separate files and
adds documentation to each section. This way sets of rules which are
connected to a particular plugin (`jsdoc`, `@babel`, etc.) can be easily
understood instead of being obscured.
3 years ago
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
