feat(ramp): add sell quick amounts with gas estimations

[wachunei]

Description

This PR adds quick amounts buttons as percentages to the Sell Build Quote Keyboard. The percentages and max button will calculate a new amount Amount and always be set to the minimum of (Amount, Balance - Gas Fees) if the selected asset is the native asset, enforcing the Amount never to be over the required gas fees to be paid.

Related issues

Fixes:

Manual testing steps

1. Go to Sell flow
2. Select a native asset (eg: Ethereum in mainnet)
3. Open the keyboard and test the buttons

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2023-12-12.at.14.25.46.mp4

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
• I've linked related issues
• I've included manual testing steps
• I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
• 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.
• 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.

[socket-security]

Updated dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Packages	Version	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
@consensys/on-ramp-sdk	1.25.4...1.25.6	None	+0/-0	433 kB	pmkowalski

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (445ef2b) 39.65% compared to head (2a83e69) 40.21%.
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...onents/UI/Ramp/buy/Views/BuildQuote/BuildQuote.tsx	77.14%	1 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8080      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   39.65%   40.21%   +0.56%     
==========================================
  Files        1233     1234       +1     
  Lines       29820    29883      +63     
  Branches     2840     2862      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits        11824    12017     +193     
+ Misses      17307    17175     -132     
- Partials      689      691       +2     

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

[github-actions]

E2E test started on Bitrise: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/1046cfe8-9727-43e2-ac4c-66ebdfd9f683
You can also kick off another Bitrise E2E smoke test by removing and re-applying the (Run Smoke E2E) label

[socket-security]

👍 Dependency issues cleared. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

This PR previously contained dependency changes with security issues that have been resolved, removed, or ignored.

[wachunei]

@SocketSecurity ignore @consensys/on-ramp-sdk@1.25.6

[NicolasMassart]

Nice feature, I really missed it and did not realise it could be added this way. Good job.

I added comments as I understood the overall code but still find it difficult to exactly get what cases we actually take into account, specifically related to gaslimit, because of the use of numbers for which I have to guess the origin instead of clearly being told what they are for.
I suggest you add some code comments to explain why and/or use explicit constant names to prevent the magic numbers that could not be obvious for other devs. Try to imagine asking yourself what these numbers would mean if you just landed on this code without any knowledge of the project or crypto.
Thanks!

[wachunei]

@NicolasMassart Thank you for your review. I have addressed some of the comments already in the latest commit.

[bkirb]

@wachunei LGTM I finished verifying this change ✅

[NicolasMassart]

I approve this changes for merge.

However I believe we should carefully refactor the test to make sure it's very clear what all the values are and what the test case is.
Not doing it doesn't break the code but doing it would ,make the code even more easy to understand.
Please consider this suggestion before merging.

[wachunei]

I approve this changes for merge.

However I believe we should carefully refactor the test to make sure it's very clear what all the values are and what the test case is. Not doing it doesn't break the code but doing it would ,make the code even more easy to understand. Please consider this suggestion before merging.

Done in cf91073, thank you very much for your review

[NicolasMassart]

Looks good to me.
Thank you so much, I love reading clear code like this!

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

The SonarCloud Quality Gate passed, but some issues were introduced.

2 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
92.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud