Release 1182.0.0 - #9798
Merged
Merged
Conversation
dan437
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 6, 2026 13:20
dan437
enabled auto-merge
August 6, 2026 13:22
|
✅ No changelog changes needed. |
jpuri
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2026
cryptodev-2s
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2026
pull Bot
pushed a commit
to dmrazzy/core
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2026
## Explanation Release `1186.0.0` with a minor version bump for: - **`@metamask/transaction-pay-controller`** `26.2.3` → `26.3.0` ### `@metamask/transaction-pay-controller@26.3.0` #### Added - Add optional `resolveSourceAmount` constructor option to `TransactionPayController`, allowing clients to supply an exact atomic source amount for a required token that bypasses the default fiat-derived source calculation ([MetaMask#9817](MetaMask#9817)) #### Changed - Bump `@metamask/transaction-controller` from `^69.5.0` to `^69.5.1` ([MetaMask#9798](MetaMask#9798)) - Bump `@metamask/keyring-controller` from `^27.1.0` to `^27.1.1` ([MetaMask#9791](MetaMask#9791)) - Bump `@metamask/assets-controllers` from `^111.0.0` to `^111.1.0` ([MetaMask#9793](MetaMask#9793)) - Bump `@metamask/assets-controller` from `^13.1.1` to `^13.1.2` ([MetaMask#9813](MetaMask#9813)) ### Dependency updates No downstream packages depend on `@metamask/transaction-pay-controller`, so no additional changelog entries were needed. ## References - [MetaMask#9817](MetaMask#9817) — Add `resolveSourceAmount` constructor option - [MetaMask#9798](MetaMask#9798) — Bump transaction-controller - [MetaMask#9791](MetaMask#9791) — Bump keyring-controller - [MetaMask#9793](MetaMask#9793) — Bump assets-controllers - [MetaMask#9813](MetaMask#9813) — Bump assets-controller ## Checklist - [ ] I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate - [ ] I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate - [x] I've communicated my changes to consumers by [updating changelogs for packages I've changed](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Low Risk** > Version and changelog-only release PR with no code changes in the diff. > > **Overview** > **Release `1186.0.0`** updates the monorepo version and publishes **`@metamask/transaction-pay-controller` `26.2.3` → `26.3.0`**. > > The new **`26.3.0`** changelog section documents what ships in that package: an optional **`resolveSourceAmount`** constructor on `TransactionPayController` so clients can supply an exact atomic source amount and skip the default fiat-derived calculation, plus patch bumps to `transaction-controller`, `keyring-controller`, `assets-controllers`, and `assets-controller`. The diff itself is version and changelog bookkeeping only—no application source changes in this PR. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit 633bddf. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
pull Bot
pushed a commit
to Reality2byte/core
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2026
## Explanation <!-- 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? --> ## Bridge Controller [79.1.0] ### Added - Point Arc's native USDC to the registered `slip44:5042` asset ID instead of the `erc20:0x0000...` placeholder ([MetaMask#9796](MetaMask#9796)) ### Changed - Bump `@metamask/transaction-controller` from `^69.5.0` to `^69.5.2` ([MetaMask#9798](MetaMask#9798), [MetaMask#9823](MetaMask#9823)) - Bump `@metamask/accounts-controller` from `^39.0.6` to `^39.1.0` ([MetaMask#9791](MetaMask#9791), [MetaMask#9807](MetaMask#9807)) - Bump `@metamask/multichain-network-controller` from `^3.2.2` to `^3.2.3` ([MetaMask#9791](MetaMask#9791)) - Bump `@metamask/assets-controllers` from `^111.0.0` to `^111.1.0` ([MetaMask#9793](MetaMask#9793)) - Bump `@metamask/assets-controller` from `^13.1.1` to `^13.1.2` ([MetaMask#9813](MetaMask#9813)) ## References <!-- Are there any issues that this pull request is tied to? Are there other links that reviewers should consult to understand these changes better? Are there client or consumer pull requests to adopt any breaking changes? For example: * Fixes #12345 * Related to #67890 --> ## Checklist - [ ] I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate - [ ] I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate - [ ] I've communicated my changes to consumers by [updating changelogs for packages I've changed](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/updating-changelogs.md) - [ ] I've introduced [breaking changes](https://github.com/MetaMask/core/tree/main/docs/processes/breaking-changes.md) in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them <!-- CURSOR_SUMMARY --> --- > [!NOTE] > **Low Risk** > No runtime code changes in the diff—only versions, changelogs, and lockfile entries for a tagged release. > > **Overview** > Release cut that bumps the core monorepo to **1188.0.0** and publishes **`@metamask/bridge-controller` 79.1.0**, with **`@metamask/bridge-status-controller`** updated to depend on bridge-controller **^79.1.0** and **`yarn.lock`** aligned. > > The **79.1.0** changelog (not new code in this diff) documents shipping Arc native USDC on **`slip44:5042`** instead of a zero-address ERC-20 placeholder, plus routine dependency bumps on transaction-controller, accounts-controller, multichain-network-controller, and assets packages. > > <sup>Reviewed by [Cursor Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot) for commit 31a2562. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure [here](https://www.cursor.com/dashboard/bugbot).</sup> <!-- /CURSOR_SUMMARY -->
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Patch release of
@metamask/transaction-controller.Note
Low Risk
Dependency-only release with a small RPC encoding fix in transaction-controller; no new APIs or breaking changes in this diff.
Overview
Monorepo release 1182.0.0 rolls out patch
@metamask/transaction-controller@69.5.1across the workspace: root version bump,package.json/yarn.lockdependency pins from^69.5.0to^69.5.1, and matching Unreleased changelog lines on every consumer package (assets, bridge, wallet, EIP-5792, etc.).The underlying library change in 69.5.1 normalizes transaction
valueforeth_estimateGasby stripping leading zero digits (e.g.0x00→ canonical hex), so gas estimation no longer fails on strict RPC parsers such as Gohexutil.Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ed62f74. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.