fix: token decimals fetched from the chain

[tommasini]

Description

The problem was that the user was able to insert wrong the token decimals values, and with that would get the wrong tokens amounts in their wallet.

• Added a new state to lock the text inputs of symbol and decimals when the symbol
• Decimals and names are fetchable from the chain
• Reset all the states when the address text input changed when an address does not have 42 chars
• Added styling to address the value of symbols and decimals text input when fetched from the chain

It was also added to the wallet_watchAsset JSON rpc method

• overrides token decimals and symbol if they aare fetched from the chain

Note for review

• On RPCMethodMiddleware file wallet_watchAsset method
• On the 207 line validateCustomTokenAddress of AddCustomToken

Manual testing steps

Scenario 1:
_1. Step1: Go to import token on wallet view
_2. Step2: change tab to custom token
_3. Step3: add 0x2260FAC5E5542a773Aa44fBCfeDf7C193bc2C599 (WBTC) as token address
_4. Step4: It should block all the symbol and decimals field

Scenario 2
Step1: Go to in app browser
Step2: Go to coingecko website
Step3: Browse WBTC
Step4: look for the MM icon
Step5: Add it via coin gecko
Step6: It should work as expected

Screenshots/Recordings

• importing token on custom token screen
  http://recordit.co/ENT3D6Y0wn

• import token on coin gecko
  https://recordit.co/Ikwc5adYZn

• import token on test dapp with wrong symbol and decimals (WBTC contract)
  https://recordit.co/zoixJsK4Sc

• import WBTC on polygon network
  https://recordit.co/zTtxIthF4C

E2E build

https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/1d5eb4d0-faff-456b-b66b-6e55718f4cdf

Related issues

_Fixes #

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".

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.

[legobeat]

Can test(s) be added for this invariant?

[legobeat]

Existing test failing: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/actions/runs/6566850147/job/17838459943?pr=7540

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 19 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (bf25c3e) 34.61% compared to head (6e627fc) 34.69%.
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7540      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   34.61%   34.69%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files        1019     1020       +1     
  Lines       27193    27249      +56     
  Branches     2218     2228      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         9413     9453      +40     
- Misses      17289    17301      +12     
- Partials      491      495       +4     

Files	Coverage Δ
app/constants/error.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
app/core/RPCMethods/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
app/core/RPCMethods/RPCMethodMiddleware.ts	46.06% <0.00%> (+1.91%)	⬆️
app/core/RPCMethods/wallet_watchAsset.ts	82.60% <82.60%> (ø)
app/components/UI/AddCustomToken/index.js	30.90% <22.22%> (-0.58%)	⬇️

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[tommasini]

@legobeat Addressed the test failure, the unit test would be a blocker for you? I'm having a hard time with this unit test and I feel the logic that will be tested is the override logic due to mocking the other results. Let me know your thoughts <3

@Cal-L Addressed all your reviews thanks <3

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

60.7% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

Test has been added

[Andepande]

QA Passed