* Use UrlIcon instead of Identicon on approve screen
* Update ui/pages/confirm-approve/confirm-approve-content/confirm-approve-content.component.js
Co-authored-by: Thomas Huang <tmashuang@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Huang <tmashuang@users.noreply.github.com>
This reverts commit 466ece4588, which has
the message:
"Revert "Merge pull request #7599 from MetaMask/Version-v7.7.0" (#7648)"
This effectively re-introduces the changes from the "LoginPerSite" PR.
The custom spend limit was previously not validated. It did have a
minimum of zero set, but this didn't have any affect (that minimum is
used for form constraint validation, and this field wasn't in a form).
The field was never checked to ensure the contents didn't exceed the
maximum.
The field is now checked for values that exceed the maximum, and
invalid values in general (including negative values).
The parameters to the `showEditApprovalPermissionModal` were also
alphabetized to make them easier to read. In the course of doing this,
I noticed that the origin was missing from one of the calls. This was
responsible for the modal saying "Spend limit requested by undefined"
when clicking "Edit" under the transaction details. This has been
fixed.
The custom spend limit was previously not validated. It did have a
minimum of zero set, but this didn't have any affect (that minimum is
used for form constraint validation, and this field wasn't in a form).
The field was never checked to ensure the contents didn't exceed the
maximum.
The field is now checked for values that exceed the maximum, and
invalid values in general (including negative values).
The parameters to the `showEditApprovalPermissionModal` were also
alphabetized to make them easier to read. In the course of doing this,
I noticed that the origin was missing from one of the calls. This was
responsible for the modal saying "Spend limit requested by undefined"
when clicking "Edit" under the transaction details. This has been
fixed.
In the case where the initial spend limit for the `approve` function
was set to the maximum amount, editing this value would result in the
new limit being silently ignored. The transaction would be submitted
with the original max spend limit.
This occurred because function to generate the new custom data would
look for the expected spend limit in the existing data, then bail if
it was not found (and in these cases, it was never found).
The reason the value was not found is that it was erroneously being
converted to a `Number`. A JavaScript `Number` is not precise enough to
represent larger spend limits, so it would give the wrong hex value
(after rounding had taken place in the conversion to a floating-point
number).
The data string is now updated without relying upon the original token
value; the new value is inserted after the `spender` argument instead,
as the remainder of the `data` string is guaranteed to be the original
limit. Additionally, the conversion to a `Number` is now omitted so
that the custom spend limit is encoded correctly.
Fixes#7915
In the case where the initial spend limit for the `approve` function
was set to the maximum amount, editing this value would result in the
new limit being silently ignored. The transaction would be submitted
with the original max spend limit.
This occurred because function to generate the new custom data would
look for the expected spend limit in the existing data, then bail if
it was not found (and in these cases, it was never found).
The reason the value was not found is that it was erroneously being
converted to a `Number`. A JavaScript `Number` is not precise enough to
represent larger spend limits, so it would give the wrong hex value
(after rounding had taken place in the conversion to a floating-point
number).
The data string is now updated without relying upon the original token
value; the new value is inserted after the `spender` argument instead,
as the remainder of the `data` string is guaranteed to be the original
limit. Additionally, the conversion to a `Number` is now omitted so
that the custom spend limit is encoded correctly.
Fixes#7915
* Add `react/no-unused-prop-types` rule
All detected unused prop types have been removed. I have attempted to
ensure these props are no longer passed in either.
* Update handling of props to avoid false positive lint errors
These cases were detected by `react/no-unused-prop-types` as being
unused props, even though they were used. These minor adjustments
prevent them from being flagged as errors.
* Update unit tests
Many of these tests were just checking that specific props were passed
from containers or to a child component. These were deleted, as I can't
imagine how they'd be useful.
* Disable `react/no-unused-prop-types` in `componentWillReceiveProps
The rule `react/no-unused-prop-types` doesn't seem to be detecting
props used within `UNSAFE_componentWillReceiveProps`. The two cases
have been disabled temporarily until we can replace these unsafe
lifecycle functions.
The units for the amounts shown on the approve screen in the
transaction fee section were missing. It appears that they were present
in an early version of the approve screen (#7271) but they got lost
somewhere along the way.
* Redesign approve screen
* Add translations to approve screen components
* Show account in header of approve screen
* Use state prop bool for unlimited vs custom check in edit-approval-permission
* Set option to custom on input change in edit-approval-permission
* Allow setting of approval amount to unlimited in edit-approval-permission
* Fix height of confirm-approval popup
* Ensure decimals prop passted to confirm-approve.component is correct type
* Ensure first param passed to calcTokenValue in confirm-approve.util is the correct type
* Fix e2e test of permission editing
* Remove unused code from edit-approval-permission.container
Dan J Miller
Brad Decker
Niranjana Binoy
Erik Marks
Thomas Huang
David Walsh
Mark Stacey
Whymarrh Whitby