fix(money): skip insufficient-funds alert on Max money account deposit cp-8.5.0

[jpuri]

Description

A Max money account deposit derives its amount from a balance snapshot while the insufficient-funds alert compares against a live balance. Fiat rounding between the two could push the amount marginally above the live balance and falsely show "Insufficient funds", even though the submitted token amount is clamped to the actual raw balance.

Track the Max deposit selection via ConfirmationContext (isMaxDeposit) and have useInsufficientPayTokenBalanceAlert skip the input check for a Max money account deposit.

Changelog

CHANGELOG entry:

Related issues

Fixes: https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/CONF-1730

Manual testing steps

NA

Screenshots/Recordings

NA

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.

Performance checks (if applicable)

• I've tested on Android
  • Ideally on a mid-range device; emulator is acceptable
• I've tested with a power user scenario
  • Use these power-user SRPs to import wallets with many accounts and tokens
• I've instrumented key operations with Sentry traces for production performance metrics
  • See trace() for usage and addToken for an example

For performance guidelines and tooling, see the Performance Guide.

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.

---

Note

Low Risk
Localized confirmation/money-deposit UX fix with tests; no auth, payment submission, or broad alert logic changes beyond the max-deposit exception.

Overview
Fixes a false Insufficient funds blocking alert when users choose Max on a money account deposit. The Max amount comes from a balance snapshot, but the alert compares fiat against a live balance, so tiny rounding gaps could block confirm even though the on-chain amount is clamped to the real balance.

ConfirmationContext now exposes isMaxDeposit / setIsMaxDeposit. useTransactionCustomAmount sets the flag when 100% is chosen for a money account deposit and clears it on manual edits or pay-token changes. useInsufficientPayTokenBalanceAlert skips the input-balance check only for moneyAccountDeposit when isMaxDeposit is true; other flows are unchanged.

Tests cover context state, alert behavior for max vs non-max deposits, and updated confirmation mocks.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ac519e2. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[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]

🔍 Smart E2E Test Selection

• Selected E2E tags: SmokeConfirmations, SmokeMoney
• Selected Performance tags: None (no tests recommended)
• Risk Level: medium
• AI Confidence: 90%

click to see 🤖 AI reasoning details

E2E Test Selection:
The PR makes targeted changes to the confirmation system for money account deposits:

1. confirmation-context.tsx: Adds isMaxDeposit boolean state and setIsMaxDeposit setter to the shared ConfirmationContext. This is a new field in a widely-used context, so any component consuming this context could be affected.

2. useTransactionCustomAmount.ts: Integrates setIsMaxDeposit to flag when a user selects the maximum amount for a money account deposit (100% of balance). Resets the flag on manual edits or pay token changes.

3. useInsufficientPayTokenBalanceAlert.ts: Uses the new isMaxDeposit flag to skip the insufficient-funds alert for max money account deposits, preventing false positives caused by fiat rounding drift between the balance snapshot and live balance.

Tag Selection:

• SmokeMoney: Directly affected — the fix targets money account deposit flows (MetaMask Card/fiat on-ramp). The max deposit amount selection and insufficient-funds alert behavior are core to this flow.
• SmokeConfirmations: The ConfirmationContext is shared across all confirmation types. The alert system (useInsufficientPayTokenBalanceAlert) and custom amount hook (useTransactionCustomAmount) are used in confirmation flows broadly. Changes to the context interface need validation across confirmation types.

Not selected:

• Other tags (SmokeSwap, SmokeStake, SmokeNetworkExpansion, etc.) are not directly impacted — the changes are scoped to money account deposit logic and the confirmation context extension, which doesn't affect non-deposit confirmation flows in a breaking way.

Performance tests: No performance-sensitive code paths are changed. The changes are purely logic/state management for alert suppression in a specific deposit scenario.

Performance Test Selection:
The changes are limited to state management in the confirmation context (adding isMaxDeposit flag) and alert logic (skipping insufficient-funds alert for max deposits). No rendering performance, asset loading, or app launch paths are affected. No performance test files were changed.

View GitHub Actions results

[github-actions]

🧪 Flaky unit test detection

Run history flaky detection

View recent run history

Historical failure rate is a hint, not proof — review each suggestion in context. See the flaky-test-detection skill for the full pattern reference and manual audit workflow.

Failures / runs sampled per window:

File	7d	15d	30d
app/components/Views/confirmations/components/footer/footer.test.tsx	0/176	0/294	0/294

AI-detected flaky patterns

app/components/Views/confirmations/components/footer/footer.test.tsx

• J10 — jest.spyOn without restoreAllMocks in afterEach (medium)
  • Multiple tests (e.g. the QR signing and camera permission tests) use jest.spyOn(QRHardwareHook, 'useQRHardwareContext') to mock the hook but there is no afterEach that calls jest.restoreAllMocks(). Spies persist across tests and can cause non-deterministic behavior depending on execution order (matches J10 exactly; history showed 0 failures but pattern is present). No other J1-J10 patterns matched in any of the 4 files (all use beforeEach with clearAllMocks or resetAllMocks, waitFor calls contain assertions, no fake timers with waitFor, no arbitrary sleeps, no mutable module lets, no incomplete stores, no non-deterministic APIs).
  • Suggested fix in app/components/Views/confirmations/components/footer/footer.test.tsx:

    -  beforeEach(() => {
    -    jest.clearAllMocks();
    -
    -    mockUseConfirmationContext.mockReturnValue({
    -      mmPayRequestInProgressNavHandler: { current: false },
    -      headlessBuyError: undefined,
    -      isFooterVisible: true,
    -      isConfirmationSubmitting: false,
    -      isConfirmationSubmittingRef: { current: false },
    -      isHeadlessBuyInProgress: false,
    -      isTransactionDataUpdating: false,
    -      isTransactionValueUpdating: false,
    -      setHeadlessBuyError: jest.fn(),
    -      setIsFooterVisible: jest.fn(),
    -      setIsConfirmationSubmitting: jest.fn(),
    -      setIsHeadlessBuyInProgress: jest.fn(),
    -      setIsTransactionDataUpdating: jest.fn(),
    -      setIsTransactionValueUpdating: jest.fn(),
    -      isMaxDeposit: false,
    -      setIsMaxDeposit: jest.fn(),
    -    });
    -
    -    (useAlerts as jest.Mock).mockReturnValue({
    -      fieldAlerts: [],
    -      hasDangerAlerts: false,
    -      setAlertConfirmed: jest.fn(),
    -    });
    -
    -    (useAlertsConfirmed as jest.Mock).mockReturnValue({
    -      hasUnconfirmedDangerAlerts: false,
    -    });
    -
    -    useIsTransactionPayLoadingMock.mockReturnValue(false);
    -    useIsGaslessLoadingMock.mockReturnValue({ isGaslessLoading: false });
    -  });
    +  beforeEach(() => {
    +    jest.clearAllMocks();
    +
    +    mockUseConfirmationContext.mockReturnValue({
    +      mmPayRequestInProgressNavHandler: { current: false },
    +      headlessBuyError: undefined,
    +      isFooterVisible: true,
    +      isConfirmationSubmitting: false,
    +      isConfirmationSubmittingRef: { current: false },
    +      isHeadlessBuyInProgress: false,
    +      isTransactionDataUpdating: false,
    +      isTransactionValueUpdating: false,
    +      setHeadlessBuyError: jest.fn(),
    +      setIsFooterVisible: jest.fn(),
    +      setIsConfirmationSubmitting: jest.fn(),
    +      setIsHeadlessBuyInProgress: jest.fn(),
    +      setIsTransactionDataUpdating: jest.fn(),
    +      setIsTransactionValueUpdating: jest.fn(),
    +      isMaxDeposit: false,
    +      setIsMaxDeposit: jest.fn(),
    +    });
    +
    +    (useAlerts as jest.Mock).mockReturnValue({
    +      fieldAlerts: [],
    +      hasDangerAlerts: false,
    +      setAlertConfirmed: jest.fn(),
    +    });
    +
    +    (useAlertsConfirmed as jest.Mock).mockReturnValue({
    +      hasUnconfirmedDangerAlerts: false,
    +    });
    +
    +    useIsTransactionPayLoadingMock.mockReturnValue(false);
    +    useIsGaslessLoadingMock.mockReturnValue({ isGaslessLoading: false });
    +  });
    +
    +  afterEach(() => {
    +    jest.restoreAllMocks();
    +  });

This check is informational only and does not block merging.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.77%. Comparing base (a3e7109) to head (ac519e2).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             main   #33836    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   84.76%   84.77%            
========================================
  Files        6244     6245     +1     
  Lines      168009   168125   +116     
  Branches    41120    41145    +25     
========================================
+ Hits       142420   142528   +108     
- Misses      15848    15855     +7     
- Partials     9741     9742     +1     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud