feat(identity): sync address book contacts #5776
Open
Conversation
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
7 tasks
4 tasks
|
No dependency changes detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub. 👍 No dependency changes detected in pull request |
fabiobozzo
changed the title
fabiobozzo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2025
## Explanation - Emit events on contact updates and deletions. - List method to retrieve contacts stored locally. ## References Needed by: #5776 ## Checklist - [x] I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate - [x] 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/contributing.md#updating-changelogs), highlighting breaking changes as necessary - [x] I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes --------- Co-authored-by: Mathieu Artu <[email protected]>
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
7 tasks
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
mathieuartu
reviewed
Jun 2, 2025
...le-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/__fixtures__/mockContacts.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...file-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/__fixtures__/test-utils.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...file-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/__fixtures__/test-utils.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../profile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/setup-subscriptions.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/profile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/utils.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ofile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/controller-integration.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ofile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/controller-integration.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
+235
to
+238
| if (onContactSyncErroneousSituation) { | ||
| onContactSyncErroneousSituation('Error synchronizing contacts', { | ||
| error, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should still throw the actual error here, as to me this is a real error and not an erroneous situation. FYI, we introduced the concept of erroneous situations for account syncing because we detected weird behaviors that didn't align with our other metrics, and wanted to understand corner cases.
For contacts, we might not want to have the concept of "erroneous situations" at all, at least for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might encounter erroneous situations with contact syncing as well, imho. 🤔 Especially bc of deletions.
I'd prefer to leave the callback in place, and just re-throw the error, for now.
...ofile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/controller-integration.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ofile-sync-controller/src/controllers/user-storage/contact-syncing/controller-integration.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@metamaskbot publish-preview |
|
Preview builds have been published. See these instructions for more information about preview builds. Expand for full list of packages and versions. |
mirceanis
requested changes
Jun 3, 2025
| */ | ||
| export type SyncAddressBookEntry = AddressBookEntry & { | ||
| lastUpdatedAt?: number; | ||
| deleted?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd argue that deleted can be removed and we can use deletedAt for both.
We can also argue the reverse: Since we have a lastUpdatedAt property, we can combine that with the deleted flag to compute deletedAt.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, but I prefer the 1st among your options:
- I'll get rid of
deleted(bool) deletedAtabsent or zero means ofc "not deleted"lastUpdatedAtkeeps being only about updates (and it's persisted in AddressBook unlike deletedAt)
| true, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // Get all local contacts from AddressBookController (exclude chain "*" contacts) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why exclude chainId=='*'?
How sure are we this is the only situation with universal chainId?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pretty sure. If you look at the current implementation of AddressBookController there's never a chance a contact is stored with an unknown/wildcard chain id. Perhaps in the past that was possible, and the "pet name bridge" still uses that for "account contacts" which is out of this PR's scope.
| getMessenger().call( | ||
| 'AddressBookController:set', | ||
| contact.address, | ||
| contact.name || '', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think contacts with empty names should be ignored.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // SCENARIO 3 & 5: Process local contacts not in remote |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO this also covers scenario 1. We should be able to shorten some of the implementation.
Comment on lines
206
to
232
| // Update existing remote contacts with new contacts | ||
| const updatedRemoteContacts = [...remoteContacts]; | ||
|
|
||
| for (const localContact of contactsToUpdateRemotely) { | ||
| const key = createContactKey(localContact); | ||
| const existingIndex = updatedRemoteContacts.findIndex( | ||
| (c) => createContactKey(c) === key, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const now = Date.now(); | ||
| const updatedEntry = { | ||
| ...localContact, | ||
| lastUpdatedAt: now, | ||
| deleted: false, // Ensure it's not deleted | ||
| } as SyncAddressBookEntry; | ||
|
|
||
| if (existingIndex !== -1) { | ||
| // Update existing contact | ||
| updatedRemoteContacts[existingIndex] = updatedEntry; | ||
| } else { | ||
| // Add new contact | ||
| updatedRemoteContacts.push(updatedEntry); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Save updated contacts to remote storage | ||
| await saveContactsToUserStorage(updatedRemoteContacts, options); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's not send the remote contacts back if they haven't changed locally.
Starting with const updatedRemoteContacts = [...remoteContacts]; means we're always sending the entire list of contacts.
We can index by contactKey and create a list containing only the modified or new contacts like so:
Suggested change
| // Update existing remote contacts with new contacts | |
| const updatedRemoteContacts = [...remoteContacts]; | |
| for (const localContact of contactsToUpdateRemotely) { | |
| const key = createContactKey(localContact); | |
| const existingIndex = updatedRemoteContacts.findIndex( | |
| (c) => createContactKey(c) === key, | |
| ); | |
| const now = Date.now(); | |
| const updatedEntry = { | |
| ...localContact, | |
| lastUpdatedAt: now, | |
| deleted: false, // Ensure it's not deleted | |
| } as SyncAddressBookEntry; | |
| if (existingIndex !== -1) { | |
| // Update existing contact | |
| updatedRemoteContacts[existingIndex] = updatedEntry; | |
| } else { | |
| // Add new contact | |
| updatedRemoteContacts.push(updatedEntry); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| // Save updated contacts to remote storage | |
| await saveContactsToUserStorage(updatedRemoteContacts, options); | |
| const updatedRemoteContacts: Record<string, SyncAddressBookEntry> = {}; | |
| for (const localContact of contactsToUpdateRemotely) { | |
| const key = createContactKey(localContact); | |
| updatedRemoteContacts[key] = { | |
| ...remoteContactsMap.get(key), // Start with an existing remote contact if it exists | |
| ...localContact, // override with local changes | |
| lastUpdatedAt: Date.now(), // mark as updated | |
| deleted: false, // Ensure it's not deleted | |
| }; | |
| } | |
| // Save updated contacts to remote storage | |
| await saveContactsToUserStorage( | |
| Object.values(updatedRemoteContacts), | |
| options, | |
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right. It's no longer necessary to overwrite all contacts per user/chain. I should update/delete only those who actually changed state.
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| [USER_STORAGE_VERSION_KEY]: USER_STORAGE_VERSION, | ||
| a: toChecksumHexAddress(address), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd remove the checksum address here since we are going to need non-EVM contacts too
Suggested change
| a: toChecksumHexAddress(address), | |
| a: address, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, that makes sense. Although a validation on hex addresses still happens in AddressBookController atm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, but I think it's best to keep that logic there and deal with the sync assuming everything else was already validated.
| userStorageEntry: UserStorageContactEntry, | ||
| ): SyncAddressBookEntry => { | ||
| const addressBookEntry: SyncAddressBookEntry = { | ||
| address: toChecksumHexAddress(userStorageEntry.a), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same argument here about non-EVM.
We can let other parts of the code deal with the address validation.
Suggested change
| address: toChecksumHexAddress(userStorageEntry.a), | |
| address: userStorageEntry.a, |
| name: userStorageEntry.n, | ||
| chainId: userStorageEntry.c, | ||
| memo: userStorageEntry.m || '', | ||
| isEns: false, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what happens to ENS contacts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ooops. I forgot to map it! 🤦 Thanks! Great catch.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Explanation
The current implementation of MetaMask's address book (contacts) lacks the ability to synchronize between devices. While we recently implemented this capability for accounts using encrypted user storage, the address book remained local to each device.
This PR implements backup-and-sync functionality for the address book controller, similar to what was already implemented for the accounts controller.
Implementation notes
References
Needed by: MetaMask/metamask-extension#32632
Depends on: #5779
Checklist