feat: Add metrics for provider calls coming from ppom on mobile

[segun]

Description

We need to add metrics to help measure and estimate the usage and cost of Infura by ppom.

This fix uses the providerRequestsCount object returned as part of the securityAlertResponse of transaction object and gets only the keys that matches the below specified requests.

Proposal

Add new properties to Transactions and Signature events where which property will count the number of rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that specific transaction or signature.

• ppom_eth_call_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_eth_createAccessList_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_eth_getStorageAt_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_eth_getCode_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_eth_getTrasanctionCount_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_eth_getBalance_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature
• ppom_trace_call_count - counts the number of eth_call rpc requests made by ppom to evaluate that transaction or signature

References

• ppom provider usage benchmark
• ppom required json-rpcs

Related issues

_Fixes #1357

Testing

1. Start extension with blockaid enabled
2. Go to test-dapp and initiate a blockaid transaction
3. When blockaid banner is shown, check that the above keys (or some of it at least) are part of the metrics transaction or signature events

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained:
  • What problem this PR is solving.
  • How this problem was solved.
  • How reviewers can test my changes.
• I’ve indicated what issue this PR is linked to: Fixes #???
• I’ve included tests if applicable.
• I’ve documented any added code.
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines).
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Bitrise: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/855ec13d-b519-46d5-b3d6-f0067fe9fd57

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.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (24b4b7e) 34.61% compared to head (b1fd5be) 34.64%.
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7419      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   34.61%   34.64%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1017     1017              
  Lines       27162    27168       +6     
  Branches     2211     2212       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         9402     9411       +9     
+ Misses      17273    17267       -6     
- Partials      487      490       +3     

Files	Coverage Δ
app/core/Analytics/MetaMetrics.events.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
app/util/blockaid/index.ts	77.77% <83.33%> (+44.44%)	⬆️
...ents/Views/Settings/ExperimentalSettings/index.tsx	79.16% <0.00%> (-7.20%)	⬇️
app/core/Analytics/Analytics.js	5.19% <0.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

100.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

[jpuri]

I think we would need to test this in mobile after PR: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/pulls/jpuri is merged.