chore: Update typescript to v5.3

[Gudahtt]

Explanation

Update TypeScript to v5.3. Changes: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-5-3

Only changes were to fix newly highlighted type errors or lint errors.

References

N/A

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, highlighting breaking changes as necessary
• I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes

---

Note

Bumps TypeScript to v5.3.3 across the monorepo and updates ESLint config and minor code to satisfy new type/lint checks.

• Build/Tooling:
  • Upgrade typescript from ~5.2.2 to ~5.3.3 in root and all packages; update yarn.lock accordingly.
  • ESLint: disable @typescript-eslint/no-unnecessary-type-arguments in eslint.config.mjs (with TODO comment).
• Core Backend:
  • core-backend/src/*: annotate non-awaited traces/handlers with comments and ESLint disables (no-floating-promises, no-misused-promises).
• Permissions:
  • permission-controller/src/SubjectMetadataController.ts: add @ts-expect-error on deep type instantiation; adjust trimMetadataState to return new state via this.state.
• Samples:
  • sample-controllers/sample-gas-prices-service.ts: ensure fromHex(chainId) is stringified via .toString() when building query param.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0bb70cd. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[socket-security]

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	typescript@​5.2.2 ⏵ 5.3.3	+1

View full report

[Gudahtt]

This seemed like a simpler way to fix the type problem. We're not mutating the draft here, we're replacing it completely, so we don't need to use the draft at all

[cryptodev-2s]

Nit: Sounds good to me. Is there a specific reason you’re retaining the _draft parameter instead of omitting it entirely from the update callback?

[Gudahtt]

No, no reason. Good point, I have removed it in 912724c

[cryptodev-2s]

LGTM!

[cryptodev-2s]

Nit: Sounds good to me. Is there a specific reason you’re retaining the _draft parameter instead of omitting it entirely from the update callback?