fix: test failure on metrics test

[pedronfigueiredo]

Description

Related issues

Fixes:

Manual testing steps

1. Go to this page...

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Pre-merge author checklist

• I've followed MetaMask Contributor Docs and MetaMask Extension 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.

[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.

[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 SonarCloud

[seaona]

hi there 👋 the custom fixture function seems a bit confusing, but it looks like the test is failing because you are not passing the smartContract, meaning this won't be deployed. Then, when it tries to get the contract address, in the openDAppWithContract that is undefined:

TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'getContractAddress')

[seaona]

nit: this function is a bit miss-leading, it is called openDappWithContract but what it's actually doing is:

• unlocking MetaMask
• fetching the address of the contract
• going to the test dapp with the contract address

Since it's not introduced by this PR, it's not a blocker, but it could be improved in a subsequent PR

[pedronfigueiredo]

I am skeptic of using withRedesignConfirmationFixtures in the metrics.spec.ts test. Adding smartContract and mocks as optional arguments after the assertions becomes quite confusing because we already have arguments before the assertions at the top.

Refactoring all the tests that use it to add the arguments before the test assertions would be too much work for a small optimisation.

Since the failure has now been resolved in #25520, I will close this PR.