fix: (cp-7.46.0) network switcher - use additional checks for non-evm networks

[Prithpal-Sooriya]

Description

I have not been able to replicate this bug, but this is some additional checks to ensure we are correctly checking against EVM networks and ignore non-EVM networks.

We already added checks into main from #15184
^ However this targets @metamask/multichain-network-controller@^0.4.0, whereas the RC uses 0.3.0

Related issues

Fixes: #15272

Manual testing steps

N/A, I still haven't figured out how to repro this.

1. Go to this page...

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Contributor Docs and MetaMask Mobile 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.

[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.

[github-actions]

Bitrise

✅✅✅ pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline passed on Bitrise! ✅✅✅

Commit hash: 6297691
Build link: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/8ea5d170-8302-4511-8040-0f5e87e64b6a

Note

• You can kick off another pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline on Bitrise by removing and re-applying the Run Smoke E2E label on the pull request

[Prithpal-Sooriya]

I think I'm in favour of closing this fix for this already merged fix:
#15184

[NicolasMassart]

Can we have a unit test for CustomNetwork please?
I know there's no test file already, but adding one could be a good way to make sure we deal with all the cases.

[Prithpal-Sooriya]

@NicolasMassart tests added.

This technically is already fixed in main through #15184.
This is just some additional checks for 7.46.0.

[github-actions]

Bitrise

❌❌❌ pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline failed on Bitrise! ❌❌❌

Commit hash: ad98cc1
Build link: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/2af3e757-823f-45a8-a70d-38bafea6520f

Note

• You can kick off another pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline on Bitrise by removing and re-applying the Run Smoke E2E label on the pull request

Tip

• Check the documentation if you have any doubts on how to understand the failure on bitrise

[github-actions]

Bitrise

❌❌❌ pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline failed on Bitrise! ❌❌❌

Commit hash: 0b2ed59
Build link: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/669a37d9-575c-4913-a69f-dae351f3e85f

Note

• You can kick off another pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline on Bitrise by removing and re-applying the Run Smoke E2E label on the pull request

Tip

• Check the documentation if you have any doubts on how to understand the failure on bitrise

[github-actions]

Bitrise

✅✅✅ pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline passed on Bitrise! ✅✅✅

Commit hash: 8f9dadb
Build link: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/a8c1eb64-3564-47db-8e2f-939a1d08ca6c

Note

• You can kick off another pr_smoke_e2e_pipeline on Bitrise by removing and re-applying the Run Smoke E2E label on the pull request

[NicolasMassart]

Looks good to me!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[NicolasMassart]

I added the no-qa-needed as e2e tests passed initially but started failing after update with main, the e2e are the cause, not the code in this PR. The changes after the passing e2e are only unit tests.