feat: client integration for auxiliaryFunds + requiredAssets support (EIP-7682)

[ffmcgee725]

Description

This PR consists in client integration of the auxiliaryFunds and requiredAssets capabilities defined under ERC-7682 to enable auxiliary funds flows.

Important: this capability isn't usable yet, but will later be wired up by @MetaMask/confirmations team.

Changelog

CHANGELOG entry: Add auxiliaryFunds + requiredAssets support defined under ERC-7682 (#19965)

Related issues

Fixes: https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/WAPI-409

Manual testing steps

Feature: auxiliaryFunds support

  Scenario: user has wallet permissions
    Given support for EIP 7682 is enabled

    When user requests `wallet_getCapabilities` (via https://metamask.github.io/test-dapp)
    Then `auxiliaryFunds` should be returned as a supported capability

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

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.

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]

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	npm/​@​metamask/​eip-5792-middleware@​1.1.0 ⏵ 1.2.0	+16		+3
	npm/​@​metamask/​transaction-controller@​60.3.0 ⏵ 60.4.0	+1		+2	+1

View full report

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

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

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[adonesky1]

We landed on this as the sole criteria for this check, since the account check occurs using other hooks? I wonder if we should consolidate those hooks? And/or rename this to be more specific to what aspect of auxFunds support this particular value captures -> isAuxiliaryFundsSupportedForChain or something like that?

not blocking here.

[ffmcgee725]

Yes, this is where we landed on the checks, as per discussion.

Renaming the hook though would require us to backtrack on the work that's already been released on the previous work here, so I suggest tackling this in a future refactor.

[adonesky1]

@ffmcgee725 we should add something to the PR description indicating that this isn't really used/usable yet but will be wired up soon by @matthewwalsh0 and the confirmations team