@Ryun1 What do you think of filtering out CIP-95 incompatible wallets?

Edit:
It seems like we have the wrong filtering in GovTool and based on the code the intention indeed was to filter out these wallets. So that, I'll cover that issue

After a more in-depth analysis, the issue is rather on the wallet side.
We display on a list every wallet that includes:

supportedExtensions: [{ cip: 95 }]

and the wallet you provided on a picture, indeed includes this entry in its declaration:

And that makes, that we, based on CIP-95 Extension API, provide the extensions: [{ cip: 95 }] argument while enabling the wallet. And at this step there is the problem described in the issue - priority wallet even though it declares support for CIP-95, it doesn't really have such support that is why such error on modal occurs.

However, I made some improvement to the listing of the wallets and displaying an error on a modal informing the user, that the wallet that has been listed doesn't really have the CIP-95 support or even CIP-30 support due to missing getExtensions described here.

@Ryun1 Should we depend only on the list of compatible wallets and display only these? Or on the choose wallet modal
should we display every wallet that has the cip-95 and cip-30 supported extension or the wallets that has only the cip-95 extension as we do currently?

So far within this PR I introduced following solution:

@MSzalowski thanks for digging into this

This error is being caused by a faulty wallet implementation (intentional or not), as it is missing the .getExtensions() endpoint in the Full CIP-30 API.

@Ryun1 Should we depend only on the list of compatible wallets and display only these?

No
for context; unfortunelty there is a precedent in Cardano to whitelist wallets for access to dApps, which has bad knock-on effects like wallets spoofing their whitelisted competitors AND general confusion for users.
Furthermore, the point of standards is that we don't need to explicitly whitelist, if a wallet says that it is compatible with the standard (at connection time) we should believe it.
And if it turns out that that wallet did not implement the standard as it stated, then that is the wallet's fault and the user should contact the wallet's support.

should we display every wallet that has the cip-95 and cip-30 supported extension or the wallets that has only the cip-95 extension as we do currently?

I much prefer only showing users the CIP95 compatible wallets that they have installed.
Mainly this forces people to dig into why their CIP30 wallet does not support governance and thus will also encourage wallets to implement CIP95.

Closing this with the discussion above.