Release 990.0.0

[matthewwalsh0]

Explanation

Release of:

• @metamask/transaction-controller (major): 65.4.0 → 66.0.0
• @metamask/bridge-status-controller (minor): 71.1.4 → 71.2.0
• @metamask/transaction-pay-controller (minor): 22.5.0 → 22.6.0
• @metamask/earn-controller (minor): 12.1.2 → 12.2.0
• @metamask/perps-controller (minor): 6.1.0 → 6.2.0

References

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
• I've introduced breaking changes in this PR and have prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve them

[metamaskbotv2]

✅ No changelog changes needed.

[mcmire]

@matthewwalsh0 To help with deduplicating the dependency tree in the clients, any thoughts on including the following dependents of transaction-controller in the release?

• assets-controller
• assets-controllers
• bridge-controller
• eip-5172-middleware
• network-enablement-controller
• phishing-controller
• shield-controller
• subscription-controller
• user-operation-controller

It looks like all of these could be simple patch bumps.

(Skipping bridge-status-controller and transaction-pay-controller because they will likely be released soon anyway)

[matthewwalsh0]

@matthewwalsh0 To help with deduplicating the dependency tree in the clients, any thoughts on including the following dependents of transaction-controller in the release?

• assets-controller
• assets-controllers
• bridge-controller
• eip-5172-middleware
• network-enablement-controller
• phishing-controller
• shield-controller
• subscription-controller
• user-operation-controller

It looks like all of these could be simple patch bumps.

(Skipping bridge-status-controller and transaction-pay-controller because they will likely be released soon anyway)

I wouldn't usually since we usually aim to release the minimum scope we can be confident is ready for release, and not take on any additional obligations or assumptions. But in this instance, you're correct we should release those ones that use the new isInternal or their behaviour will change in the client when we bump transaction controller.

[FrederikBolding]

Just pulling this out of the merge queue in case you want to address Elliot's comment.

[mcmire]

LGTM.