Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Establish pattern for splitting Engine.ts file #12184

Closed
9 tasks
Cal-L opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #12366
Closed
9 tasks

Establish pattern for splitting Engine.ts file #12184

Cal-L opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #12366
Assignees
@Cal-L
Labels
release-7.37.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.37.0 team-mobile-platform

Comments

@Cal-L
Copy link
Contributor

Cal-L commented Nov 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

What is this about?

The Engine.ts file is a large ~2500 LOC file that holds the logic for controller initialization and is used in many places in the app. The goal here is to establish a pattern for splitting out the file so that it is:

  • Easier to manage
  • Better testability
  • Reduce non-relevant codeowner reviews (saves time on PRs)
  • More scalable solution

Scenario

No response

Design

No response

Technical Details

  • Since controllers tend to be dependent on one another, the imports from abstracted files can be functions that take dependent controllers as args to ensure initialization order is respected. For example, if TokenListController is dependent on NetworkController, the abstracted TokenListController file could look like initializeTokenListController(networkController: NetworkController)

Threat Modeling Framework

No response

Acceptance Criteria

  • App behavior should remain the same
  • Abstract at least one area as POV that can be applied to other pieces later on

Stakeholder review needed before the work gets merged

  • Engineering (needed in most cases)
  • Design
  • Product
  • QA (automation tests are required to pass before merging PRs but not all changes are covered by automation tests - please review if QA is needed beyond automation tests)
  • Security
  • Legal
  • Marketing
  • Management (please specify)
  • Other (please specify)

References
@Cal-L Cal-L self-assigned this Nov 5, 2024
@Cal-L Cal-L mentioned this issue Nov 21, 2024
Merged
7 tasks
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 24, 2024
@Cal-L
chore: #12184 MVP split engine file (#12366)
389de6e 
<!--
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?
-->

This PR establishes a pattern for splitting out controllers from the
main `Engine.ts` file, which provides the following benefits
- Reduce friction regarding code ownership especially during reviews
(this is the main purpose of this effort)
- Easier to manage, test, and handling controller initialization
failures


The POC here applies to the `AccountsController` initialization logic,
which has been mostly abstracted out into `AccountsController`
directory. This pattern should be applicable to other controllers in the
Engine file as well.

This pattern also enables us to redirect users to vault recovery in the
event of controller initialization failures and should reduce the
chances of users being "bricked". These changes may be introduced in
future interations

## **Related issues**

Fixes: #12184 

## **Manual testing steps**

The changes should not affect app behavior
- Run the app as usual
- Ensure that everything behaves as usual (Auth, dapp connections,
navigation, etc)

## **Screenshots/Recordings**

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

### **Before**

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

### **After**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->
App still runs normally


https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dc7fc017-1a26-4681-b84a-e04c63952281


## **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**

- [x] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the
app, test code being changed).
- [x] 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.
@metamaskbot metamaskbot added the release-7.37.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.37.0 label Nov 24, 2024
@gauthierpetetin
Copy link
Contributor

Slack thread

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

@Cal-L Cal-L

Labels
release-7.37.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.37.0 team-mobile-platform
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

chore: #12184 MVP split engine file MetaMask/metamask-mobile
3 participants
@gauthierpetetin @Cal-L @metamaskbot