Release 91.0.0

[MajorLift]

Explanation

• Releases major version of network-controller, which enables usage of updated getEthQuery messenger action.
• Releases major version of transaction-controller, which includes a large number of significant changes.
• Releases major version of assets-controllers, which includes breaking changes in NfTController.
• Releases patch versions of {ens,gas-fee,polling,queued-request,selected-network}-controller, which are downstream of network-controller.

References

Changelog

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 highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate

[mcmire]

According to the scenario that we outlined here, since we are now bumping network-controller by a major and since all of the other packages depend on network-controller, I'm curious whether this scenario is possible:

• Today, a client is using the getEthQuery messenger action to get the ethQuery that network-controller exports. The type of this instance is defined in eth-query 3.x, so they arguments they pass to ethQuery.sendAsync match this version as well.
• Now, they upgrade network-controller to the new major version without making any other changes. Now the type of ethQuery comes from eth-query 4.x, so those arguments no longer match the type, and they get a type error.

Given this, should we actually go ahead and release these other packages too?

[Gudahtt]

There were a few more small breaking changes I was considering for the controller messenger; perhaps we could hold off on this release for a day or so to evaluate whether we can include those too? I don't want to hold up the release train any longer than we need to, but base controller breaking changes can be quite disruptive, so minimizing them might be worthwhile.

Edit: Oh I'm sorry, nevermind. I've just noticed that the base controller isn't included in this.

[MajorLift]

@Gudahtt Keeping this release on hold shouldn't be an issue, but maybe the base-controller updates could be batched into its own release for ease of review, especially since it will include patch releases for all of the controllers?

Edit: No worries!

[Gudahtt]

Having a release just for the base controller changes is a great idea. I was thinking the same thing

[MajorLift]

@mcmire I added releases for all of the downstream packages!

[Gudahtt]

LGTM! But I'd definitely appreciate someone from the confirmation systems team taking a second look at the transaction controller changelog, I didn't review that as closely as the rest

[MajorLift]

@matthewwalsh0 Suggestions applied here: b9c6623. Thank you for going through this in detail! The transaction-controller changelog reads a lot smoother now.

[mcmire]

Looks good!