chore: Bump @metamask/providers to v18

[Gudahtt]

Description

The @metamask/providers package has been updated from v14 to v18. The breaking changes do not require any changes to the extension. They include:

• Removal of certain provider features, which were later restored
• Updates to JSON-RPC packages that used to impact error serialization in a breaking way, but no longer do (as of rpc-errors v7.0.1)
• webextension-polyfill added as a peer dependency
• Sub-path exports no longer work due to addition of exports and ESM build.

Altogether this should result in no functional changes, aside from eliminating some redundant older copies of libraries (reducing bundle size).

This update was difficult because of the need for a subpath export in inpage.js. We want to import just the initializeInpageProvider module without the rest of the package, which means we need to use a subpath export (because browserify doesn't support tree shaking). But this was challenging because the export maps added in v17 prevent the use of any subpath exports not defined in the export map. There was no entry that worked correctly across webpack and browserify. This was resolved by a new entry added in MetaMask/providers#391 (as part of v18.2.0)

Changelog: https://github.com/MetaMask/providers/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#1820

Related issues

N/A

Manual testing steps

N/A

Screenshots/Recordings

N/A

Pre-merge author checklist

• I've followed MetaMask Contributor Docs and MetaMask Extension Coding Standards.
• I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
• I’ve included tests if applicable
• I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.

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.

[Gudahtt]

@metamaskbot update-policies

[socket-security]

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

Package	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
npm/@metamask/[email protected]	None	0	440 kB	metamaskbot

🚮 Removed packages: npm/@metamask/[email protected], npm/[email protected]

View full report↗︎

[metamaskbot]

Policy update failed. You can review the logs or retry the policy update here

[Gudahtt]

@metamaskbot update-policies

[metamaskbot]

No policy changes

[cryptodev-2s]

LGTM!

[metamaskbot]

Builds ready [eb7c2d5]

• builds: chrome, firefox
• builds (beta): chrome
• builds (flask): chrome, firefox
• builds (MMI): chrome, firefox
• builds (test): chrome, firefox
• builds (test-flask): chrome, firefox
• build viz: Build System
• mv3: Background Module Init Stats
• mv3: UI Init Stats
• mv3: Module Load Stats
• mv3: Bundle Size Stats
• mv2: E2e Actions Stats
• code coverage: Report
• storybook: Storybook
• typescript migration: Dashboard
• all artifacts
• bundle viz:

  • background: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • common: 0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
  • content-script: 0
  • offscreen: 0
  • ui: 0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Page Load Metrics (1825 ± 48 ms)

Platform	Page	Metric	Min (ms)	Max (ms)	Average (ms)	StandardDeviation (ms)	MarginOfError (ms)
Chrome	Home	firstPaint	1691	2057	1829	102	49
		domContentLoaded	1649	1980	1792	88	42
		load	1683	2064	1825	100	48
		domInteractive	23	72	41	16	8
		backgroundConnect	10	84	32	21	10
		firstReactRender	15	49	22	10	5
		getState	42	107	79	21	10
		initialActions	0	0	0	0	0
		loadScripts	1273	1538	1382	83	40
		setupStore	6	11	7	1	1
		uiStartup	1918	2479	2061	149	71

Bundle size diffs

• background: 0 Bytes (0.00%)
• ui: 0 Bytes (0.00%)
• common: 0 Bytes (0.00%)

[mcmire]

The only thing that sticks out to me is the bump to a newer version of @metamask/rpc-errors, particularly 7.0.0. It seems that we could see another change to error messages in dapps. Granted, 7.0.0 restores some behavior that was changed in 5.0.0, so it's probably for the better if there is a material effect. I also see that the extension was already upgraded to 7.0.0 in #24496. So perhaps this is nothing, but I thought I'd call it out anyway.

LGTM.