Skip to content

feat: 7.49.0#16251

Closed
metamaskbot wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
release/7.49.0
Closed

feat: 7.49.0#16251
metamaskbot wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
release/7.49.0

Conversation

@metamaskbot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This is the release candidate for version 7.49.0. The changelog will be found in another PR chore/7.49.0-Changelog.

Team sign-off checklist

  • team-accounts
  • team-assets
  • team-confirmations
  • team-design-system
  • team-notifications
  • team-platform
  • team-security
  • team-snaps-platform
  • team-sdk
  • team-stake
  • team-tiger
  • team-wallet-framework

Reference

OGPoyraz and others added 5 commits June 5, 2025 16:45
This PR cherry-picks
aa1ba84

PR: #16117

---------

Co-authored-by: MetaMask Bot <metamaskbot@users.noreply.github.com>
…t networks (#16230)

- fix: cp-7.49.0 Fix fiat values for non-test networks (#16194)

<!--
Please submit this PR as a draft initially.
Do not mark it as "Ready for review" until the template has been
completely filled out, and PR status checks have passed at least once.
-->

## **Description**

<!--
Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request,
also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following
questions:
1. What is the reason for the change?
2. What is the improvement/solution?
-->

Current `main` applies "hide testnet fiat values" into non-test
networks. This PR aims to fix that.

## **Related issues**

Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/5121

## **Manual testing steps**

1. Go to send flow while in mainnet
2. See that it shows fiat value regardless of your settings for "hide
testnet fiat values"

## **Screenshots/Recordings**

<!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the
before and after of your change. -->

### **Before**

![Screenshot 2025-06-09 at 14 17

13](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a753776-ce81-4993-a9ce-39ee8d35d3d0)


### **After**

![Screenshot 2025-06-09 at 14 17

24](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dc9098d4-4b80-4d77-9129-6db7f61cc5f1)


## **Pre-merge author checklist**

- [X] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor
Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile
Coding

Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md).
- [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
- [X] I’ve included tests if applicable
- [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format
if applicable
- [X] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling

guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)).
Not required for external contributors.

## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist**

- [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the
app, test code being changed).
- [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described
in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such
as recordings and or screenshots.
[03eaa47](03eaa47)

Co-authored-by: OGPoyraz <omergoktugpoyraz@gmail.com>
…` feature flags work as true kill-switch (#16240)

- fix: cp-7.49.0 Make `confirmation_redesign` feature flags work as true
kill-switch (#16238)

<!--
Please submit this PR as a draft initially.
Do not mark it as "Ready for review" until the template has been
completely filled out, and PR status checks have passed at least once.
-->

## **Description**

<!--
Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request,
also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following
questions:
1. What is the reason for the change?
2. What is the improvement/solution?
-->

Refactored the confirmation redesign feature flag selector to use a
simpler "kill switch" approach instead of validation-based fallbacks.

### **Simplified feature flag logic:**

- Replaced validation and default fallback pattern with direct
`remoteValues?.property !== false` checks
- Remote flags now act purely as "kill switches" - they can disable
features when explicitly set to `false`

The logic now defaults to `true` for features when remote flags are not
explicitly set to `false`, rather than falling back to predefined
default values. This maintains the same kill switch functionality while
simplifying the implementation.

## **Related issues**

Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/5110

## **Manual testing steps**

N/A

## **Screenshots/Recordings**

<!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the
before and after of your change. -->

### **Before**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

### **After**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

## **Pre-merge author checklist**

- [X] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor
Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile
Coding

Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md).
- [X] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
- [X] I’ve included tests if applicable
- [X] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format
if applicable
- [X] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling

guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)).
Not required for external contributors.

## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist**

- [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the
app, test code being changed).
- [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described
in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such
as recordings and or screenshots.
[420127b](420127b)

Co-authored-by: OGPoyraz <omergoktugpoyraz@gmail.com>
<!--
Please submit this PR as a draft initially.
Do not mark it as "Ready for review" until the template has been
completely filled out, and PR status checks have passed at least once.
-->

## **Description**
Remove changelog temporarily
<!--
Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request,
also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following
questions:
1. What is the reason for the change?
2. What is the improvement/solution?
-->

## **Related issues**

Fixes:

## **Manual testing steps**

1. Go to this page...
2.
3.

## **Screenshots/Recordings**

<!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the
before and after of your change. -->

### **Before**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

### **After**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

## **Pre-merge author checklist**

- [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor
Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile
Coding
Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md).
- [ ] 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](https://jsdoc.app/) format
if applicable
- [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling
guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)).
Not required for external contributors.

## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist**

- [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the
app, test code being changed).
- [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described
in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such
as recordings and or screenshots.
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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.

@sethkfman sethkfman closed this Jun 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions Bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 10, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants