metamask-extension
metamask-extension copied to clipboard
test: Signature Redesign e2e tests for each supported signature type
Description
Related issues
Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/issues/23977 Blocked By: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/issues/24712
Manual testing steps
- set
ENABLE_CONFIRMATION_REDESIGN=true
in .metamaskrc - enable Experimental > "Improved signature requests" in settings
- test signatures in test-dapp
Screenshots/Recordings
Before
After
Pre-merge author checklist
- [ ] I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
- [ ] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
- [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable
- [ ] I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
- [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). 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.
CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.
Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 67.37%. Comparing base (
ea7a537
) to head (81a93c1
). Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #24352 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 67.37% 67.37%
========================================
Files 1284 1284
Lines 50023 50023
Branches 12985 12985
========================================
Hits 33699 33699
Misses 16324 16324
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Possible to loom through various signatures, rather than adding a separate spec for each ?
Hi @jpuri, this was a consideration. Discussed this with @pedronfigueiredo and @pnarayanaswamy. We've been leaning towards keeping files per type. I'm open to other considerations. This said, @pnarayanaswamy has created a followup PR to refactor our tests and combine them together here https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/24424
somehow, this unit test failed in this PR https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/MetaMask/metamask-extension/80783/workflows/9be32d3b-80da-41b8-8cfd-1d837f57871b/jobs/2855569
we should double-check this is not a flaky test separately from this PR cc: @jpuri
https://app.circleci.com/jobs/github/MetaMask/metamask-extension/2855977
failing on the chrome-confirmation-redesign builds 🤔
Warning: vkCreateInstance: Found no drivers!
Warning: vkCreateInstance failed with VK_ERROR_INCOMPATIBLE_DRIVER
at CheckVkSuccessImpl (../../third_party/dawn/src/dawn/native/vulkan/VulkanError.cpp:101)