build: Pull @metamask/mobile-provider back into metamask-mobile

[jiexi]

Description

Currently the inpage injected scripts used in the in-app browser (for making the wallet provider object available to the dapp) are currently built in a separate @metamask/mobile-provider package. This PR brings the build process into the mobile repo itself. This is needed in order to support passing build time variables to the provider initialization (for EIP6963 support).

Manual testing steps

1. Pull in branch
2. yarn setup
3. yarn watch
4. yarn start:ios
5. Go to in-app browser
6. Visit test dapp
7. Verify that buttons are still functional
8. Optionally: Open safari debug console on the test dapp webview
9. check that window.ethereum is defined and window.ethereum.chainId logs a deprecation warning

Screenshots/Recordings

Note the deprecation warnings which indicates that provider v13.0.0 is now being used

Related issues

See: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/869

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained:
  • What problem this PR is solving.
  • How this problem was solved.
  • How reviewers can test my changes.
• I’ve indicated what issue this PR is linked to: Fixes #???
• I’ve included tests if applicable.
• I’ve documented any added code.
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines).
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

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]

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.

[socket-security]

New, updated, and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Packages	Version	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
@metamask/object-multiplex	1.2.0	None	+1	102 kB	gudahtt
webpack-cli	5.1.4	environment	+10	481 kB	evilebottnawi
@metamask/providers	13.1.0	None	+6	635 kB	metamaskbot
stream-browserify	1.0.0...3.0.0	None	+2/-1	150 kB	goto-bus-stop
readable-stream	1.0.33...2.3.7	None	+0/-0	87.7 kB	matteo.collina

🚮 Removed packages: obj-multiplex@1.0.0

[socket-security]

👍 Dependency issues cleared. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

This PR previously contained dependency changes with security issues that have been resolved, removed, or ignored.

Ignoring: @metamask/object-multiplex@1.2.0, extension-port-stream@2.1.1, setprototypeof@1.2.0

Next steps

Take a deeper look at the dependency

Take a moment to review the security alert above. Review the linked package source code to understand the potential risk. Ensure the package is not malicious before proceeding. If you're unsure how to proceed, reach out to your security team or ask the Socket team for help at support [AT] socket [DOT] dev.

Remove the package

If you happen to install a dependency that Socket reports as Known Malware you should immediately remove it and select a different dependency. For other alert types, you may may wish to investigate alternative packages or consider if there are other ways to mitigate the specific risk posed by the dependency.

Mark a package as acceptable risk

To ignore an alert, reply with a comment starting with @SocketSecurity ignore followed by a space separated list of package-name@version specifiers. e.g. @SocketSecurity ignore foo@1.0.0 bar@* or ignore all packages with @SocketSecurity ignore-all

[jiexi]

@SocketSecurity ignore @metamask/object-multiplex@1.2.0
@SocketSecurity ignore extension-port-stream@2.1.1

these are our packages. but i don't trust this gudahtt fellow

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (cd15dab) 34.61% compared to head (de52d61) 34.61%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7494   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   34.61%   34.61%           
=======================================
  Files        1019     1019           
  Lines       27193    27193           
  Branches     2218     2218           
=======================================
  Hits         9413     9413           
  Misses      17289    17289           
  Partials      491      491           

Files	Coverage Δ
app/components/UI/Swaps/utils/index.js	16.12% <ø> (ø)
app/constants/network.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
app/core/Engine.ts	53.74% <ø> (ø)
app/util/streams.js	21.42% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Cal-L]

Since the Provider directory are files used during build time, seems better to move them out to maybe the top most level of the application. WDYT?

[jiexi]

we can move them. Not sure what directory to park them in though. This is where inpage lives in extension for reference

https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/a1fad6ab9ba50069953254ee51e4e8e65a53c3c8/app/scripts/inpage.js#L42

[Cal-L]

we can move them. Not sure what directory to park them in though. This is where inpage lives in extension for reference

https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/blob/a1fad6ab9ba50069953254ee51e4e8e65a53c3c8/app/scripts/inpage.js#L42

Hm, maybe we move them into our scripts dir?

[Cal-L]

E2E smoke tests - https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/ad87c9c6-c0b0-4852-a600-1911b1f8421d

Edit - passed!

[Cal-L]

LGTM

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

100.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[jiexi]

@SocketSecurity ignore setprototypeof@1.2.0

unmaintained

[Cal-L]

LGTM