fix: fix getting nft tokenURI

[sahar-fehri]

Explanation

User has reached out because when they import their NFT they are not able to see it.
The smart contract is deployed on linea-mainnet. It is a ERC404 contract (mixed implementation of ERC721/ERC20).
The contract does not support Metadata interface but it has the function tokenURI().

Contract address with this issue : 0x93A5467fbC9D7dbB5713752Ec5a934a5A752AC07

References

Changelog

@metamask/package-assets-controllers

• Fixed: Instead of throwing error inside getTokenURI fct when the contract does not support Metadata interface, i am only logging the error.

Checklist

• I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've highlighted breaking changes using the "BREAKING" category above as appropriate

[sahar-fehri]

In cases where contract is ERC721 and does not have fct tokenURI, we are already catching the error here

core/packages/assets-controllers/src/NftController.ts

Line 467 in 8769bd8

// Ignore error

, the user will be able to add the nft, but the image wont be displayed.

[bergeron]

Can you share the contract address of this NFT?
We're saying it has tokenURI, but does not support the metadata interface?
Since this is the metadata interface, this means it does not have either name() or symbol?

function name() returns string
function symbol() returns string
function tokenURI(uint256 _tokenId) returns string

[sahar-fehri]

Can you share the contract address of this NFT? We're saying it has tokenURI, but does not support the metadata interface? Since this is the metadata interface, this means it does not have either name() or symbol?

function name() returns string
function symbol() returns string
function tokenURI(uint256 _tokenId) returns string

This is the contract address: 0x93A5467fbC9D7dbB5713752Ec5a934a5A752AC07
The contract does have a name/symbol/tokenURI. It is just not extending the ERC721Metadata interface, so when we do check if the contract supports that interfaceId 0x5b5e139f we get a false.

The extension of the metadata interface is optional overall for ERC721, but i think a lot of decent NFTs support it already, mostly because latest openzeppelin ERC721 extend the IERC721Metadata automatically

[bergeron]

I think I figured out my confusion. It looked to me like the contract supports erc-165. And has name, symbol , and tokenUri. So I was thinking it should pass the metadata interface check. But I guess its this part:

  function supportsInterface(
    bytes4 interfaceId
  ) public view virtual returns (bool) {
    return
      interfaceId == type(IERC404).interfaceId ||
      interfaceId == type(IERC165).interfaceId;
  }

where they only announce support for IERC404. Therefore there are cases where it makes sense to call tokenUri even if we don't pass the supportsInterface check for metadata.

[kanthesha]

LGTM.