Skip to content

[TESTING PR] chore: test solana ci without the test environment variable - #83

Closed
Battambang wants to merge 1 commit into
chore/solana-wallet-snap-integrate-packagesfrom
spike/solana-tests-production-env
Closed

[TESTING PR] chore: test solana ci without the test environment variable#83
Battambang wants to merge 1 commit into
chore/solana-wallet-snap-integrate-packagesfrom
spike/solana-tests-production-env

Conversation

@Battambang

@Battambang Battambang commented Jul 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

TESTING PR to try aligning Solana CI tests execution repo pattern.

This pull request includes updates to the workflow configuration and test utilities to improve consistency and simplify test setup. The main changes are focused on standardizing environment variables for API endpoints during builds and generalizing test utility values.

Workflow and environment improvements:

  • Standardized API base URLs for price, token, security alerts, and NFT APIs to use LOCAL_API_BASE_URL during the build process in .github/workflows/lint-build-test.yml, ensuring consistent test environments.
  • Updated the workflow to restore all snap.manifest.json files in any package after test builds, rather than only the Solana package, improving generality and preventing accidental changes.

Test utility update:

  • Changed the TEST_ORIGIN value in utils.ts from 'http://localhost:3000' to 'metamask', likely to better reflect the expected test environment.

@taran-a taran-a closed this Aug 4, 2026
@taran-a
taran-a deleted the spike/solana-tests-production-env branch August 4, 2026 15:24
jeremytsng pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2026
## Explanation

This PR adds MetaMask analytics helpers for transaction/security events
and wires transaction lifecycle tracking into selected Stellar Snap
transaction flows, while centralizing the MetaMask origin string.

<!--
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?
-->

## 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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants