Skip to content

Conversation

@baptiste-marchand
Copy link

@baptiste-marchand baptiste-marchand commented Nov 14, 2025

Implements account address resolution for Bitcoin requests, allowing MetaMask to route non-EVM dapp signing requests correctly. This is a requirement for Bitcoin dApps connectivity

  • Introduces the resolveAccountAddress method in KeyringHandler and KeyringRequestHandler to determine the account address for signing requests.
  • Adds necessary data structures and validation logic for Bitcoin request parameters.

Note

Implements BTC account address resolution for dapp request routing and introduces a confirmation UI for sends; updates request schemas to require account.address across BTC methods.

  • Keyring/Handlers:
    • Add resolveAccountAddress in src/handlers/KeyringHandler.ts and src/handlers/KeyringRequestHandler.ts to derive CAIP-10 from BTC requests; wire via KeyringRpcMethod.ResolveAccountAddress.
    • Introduce BTC request validation (BtcWalletRequestStruct and per-method structs) and NetworkStruct in caip.ts.
  • Request Schemas:
    • Require params.account.address for BTC methods: SignPsbt, FillPsbt, ComputeFee, BroadcastPsbt, SendTransfer, GetUtxo, SignMessage.
  • Send Flow UX:
    • Add send confirmation via ConfirmationRepository.insertSendTransfer and UnifiedSendFormView (shows origin, fees, CAIP-10 addresses); pass chainClient into JSXConfirmationRepository and app wiring.
  • Use Cases:
    • Update AccountUseCases.sendTransfer to: enforce single recipient, build PSBT with fee rate and frozen UTXOs, show confirmation, then sign and broadcast.
  • Tests:
    • Extend integration/unit tests to include account param, validate errors for missing fields/invalid requests, and cover resolveAccountAddress behavior.
  • Manifest:
    • Update snap.manifest.json source shasum.

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 105bfe9. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

@baptiste-marchand baptiste-marchand requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2025 17:40
@baptiste-marchand baptiste-marchand changed the title feat: enables account address resolution to support dApps connectivity feat: enable account address resolution to support dApps connectivity Nov 14, 2025
});

export const SignMessageRequest = object({
account: WalletAccountStruct,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: Parameter Redundancy Breaks Backward Compatibility.

Adding the required account field to all Bitcoin request parameter structs breaks backward compatibility. The existing route method already receives the account ID from the KeyringRequest wrapper object, and all existing requests (as shown in integration tests) don't include an account field in their params. The assert statements in the route method will now reject all existing requests that lack this field, breaking all current integrations. The account field in params is redundant since the account is already available from the KeyringRequest wrapper.

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

@baptiste-marchand baptiste-marchand force-pushed the feat/bitcoin-address-resolution branch from a041ba7 to e0ea92e Compare November 17, 2025 15:19
Copy link

@cursor cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: Account Field Mandate Breaks Tests

Existing unit tests create request params without the required account field, but the request struct changes now mandate this field. Tests for signPsbt, computeFee, fillPsbt, broadcastPsbt, sendTransfer, getUtxo, and signMessage will fail during assertion validation because their params lack the required account: { address: string } object.

packages/snap/src/handlers/KeyringRequestHandler.test.ts#L64-L431

const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
origin,
request: {
method: AccountCapability.SignPsbt,
params: {
psbt: 'psbtBase64',
feeRate: 3,
options: mockOptions,
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes signPsbt', async () => {
mockAccountsUseCases.signPsbt.mockResolvedValue({
psbt: 'psbtBase64',
txid: mock<Txid>({
toString: jest.fn().mockReturnValue('txid'),
}),
});
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
SignPsbtRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.signPsbt).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
'account-id',
mockPsbt,
'metamask',
mockOptions,
3,
);
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: { psbt: 'psbtBase64', txid: 'txid' },
});
});
it('propagates errors from parsePsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error('parsePsbt');
jest.mocked(parsePsbt).mockImplementationOnce(() => {
throw error;
});
await expect(
handler.route({
...mockRequest,
request: { ...mockRequest.request, params: { psbt: 'invalidPsbt' } },
}),
).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.signPsbt).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('propagates errors from signPsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error();
mockAccountsUseCases.signPsbt.mockRejectedValue(error);
await expect(handler.route(mockRequest)).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.signPsbt).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
describe('computeFee', () => {
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
request: {
method: AccountCapability.ComputeFee,
params: {
psbt: 'psbtBase64',
feeRate: 3,
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes computeFee', async () => {
mockAccountsUseCases.computeFee.mockResolvedValue(
mock<Amount>({
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention
to_sat: () => BigInt(1000),
}),
);
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
ComputeFeeRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.computeFee).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
'account-id',
mockPsbt,
3,
);
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: { fee: '1000' },
});
});
it('propagates errors from parsePsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error('parsePsbt');
jest.mocked(parsePsbt).mockImplementationOnce(() => {
throw error;
});
await expect(
handler.route({
...mockRequest,
request: { ...mockRequest.request, params: { psbt: 'invalidPsbt' } },
}),
).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.computeFee).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('propagates errors from computeFee', async () => {
const error = new Error();
mockAccountsUseCases.computeFee.mockRejectedValue(error);
await expect(handler.route(mockRequest)).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.computeFee).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
describe('fillPsbt', () => {
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
request: {
method: AccountCapability.FillPsbt,
params: {
psbt: 'psbtBase64',
feeRate: 3,
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes fillPsbt', async () => {
const mockFilledPsbt = mock<Psbt>({
toString: jest.fn().mockReturnValue('filledPsbtBase64'),
});
mockAccountsUseCases.fillPsbt.mockResolvedValue(mockFilledPsbt);
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
FillPsbtRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.fillPsbt).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
'account-id',
mockPsbt,
3,
);
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: { psbt: 'filledPsbtBase64' },
});
});
it('propagates errors from parsePsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error('parsePsbt');
jest.mocked(parsePsbt).mockImplementationOnce(() => {
throw error;
});
await expect(
handler.route({
...mockRequest,
request: { ...mockRequest.request, params: { psbt: 'invalidPsbt' } },
}),
).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.fillPsbt).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('propagates errors from fillPsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error();
mockAccountsUseCases.fillPsbt.mockRejectedValue(error);
await expect(handler.route(mockRequest)).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.fillPsbt).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
describe('broadcastPsbt', () => {
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
origin,
request: {
method: AccountCapability.BroadcastPsbt,
params: {
psbt: 'psbtBase64',
feeRate: 3,
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes broadcastPsbt', async () => {
const mockTxid = mock<Txid>({
toString: jest.fn().mockReturnValue('txid'),
});
mockAccountsUseCases.broadcastPsbt.mockResolvedValue(mockTxid);
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
BroadcastPsbtRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.broadcastPsbt).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
'account-id',
mockPsbt,
origin,
);
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: { txid: 'txid' },
});
});
it('propagates errors from parsePsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error('parsePsbt');
jest.mocked(parsePsbt).mockImplementationOnce(() => {
throw error;
});
await expect(
handler.route({
...mockRequest,
request: { ...mockRequest.request, params: { psbt: 'invalidPsbt' } },
}),
).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.broadcastPsbt).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it('propagates errors from fillPsbt', async () => {
const error = new Error();
mockAccountsUseCases.broadcastPsbt.mockRejectedValue(error);
await expect(handler.route(mockRequest)).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.broadcastPsbt).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
describe('sendTransfer', () => {
const recipients = [
{
address: 'bcrt1qstku2y3pfh9av50lxj55arm8r5gj8tf2yv5nxz',
amount: '1000',
},
];
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
origin,
request: {
method: AccountCapability.SendTransfer,
params: {
recipients,
feeRate: 3,
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes sendTransferq', async () => {
const mockTxid = mock<Txid>({
toString: jest.fn().mockReturnValue('txid'),
});
mockAccountsUseCases.sendTransfer.mockResolvedValue(mockTxid);
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
SendTransferRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.sendTransfer).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
'account-id',
recipients,
origin,
3,
);
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: { txid: 'txid' },
});
});
it('propagates errors from sendTransfer', async () => {
const error = new Error();
mockAccountsUseCases.sendTransfer.mockRejectedValue(error);
await expect(handler.route(mockRequest)).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.sendTransfer).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});
describe('getUtxo', () => {
const mockLocalOutput = mock<LocalOutput>();
const mockAccount = mock<BitcoinAccount>({
getUtxo: () => mockLocalOutput,
network: 'bitcoin',
});
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
origin,
request: {
method: AccountCapability.GetUtxo,
params: {
outpoint: 'mytxid:0',
},
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes getUtxo', async () => {
const expectedUtxo = {
derivationIndex: 0,
outpoint: 'mytxid:0',
value: '1000',
scriptPubkey: 'scriptPubkey',
scriptPubkeyHex: 'scriptPubkeyHex',
};
mockAccountsUseCases.get.mockResolvedValue(mockAccount);
jest.mocked(mapToUtxo).mockReturnValue(expectedUtxo);
const result = await handler.route(mockRequest);
expect(assert).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
mockRequest.request.params,
GetUtxoRequest,
);
expect(mockAccountsUseCases.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith('account-id');
expect(result).toStrictEqual({
pending: false,
result: expectedUtxo,
});
});
});
describe('listUtxos', () => {
const mockLocalOutput = mock<LocalOutput>();
const mockAccount = mock<BitcoinAccount>({
listUnspent: () => [mockLocalOutput, mockLocalOutput],
network: 'bitcoin',
});
const mockRequest = mock<KeyringRequest>({
origin,
request: {
method: AccountCapability.ListUtxos,
},
account: 'account-id',
});
it('executes listUtxos', async () => {
const mockUtxo = mock<Utxo>({
derivationIndex: 0,
outpoint: 'mytxid:0',
value: '1000',
scriptPubkey: 'scriptPubkey',
scriptPubkeyHex: 'scriptPubkeyHex',
});

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web


request: {
method: AccountCapability.SendTransfer,
params: {
account: { address: account.address },
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: Integration test incompatible with new single-recipient validation

The integration test "sends funds successfully" for sendTransfer passes two recipients in the recipients array and expects a successful response with a txid. However, the new implementation in AccountUseCases.sendTransfer now validates that there is exactly one recipient, throwing a ValidationError when recipients.length > 1. The test will fail because the implementation rejects the request before processing it.

Additional Locations (1)

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

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.

3 participants