fix: carry EIP-1193 error codes through to the page (closes #274)

src/content/inpage.js rebuilt every failure as `new Error(error.message)`,
so the `code` the background produced and the content script relayed intact
was dropped in the last hop. A dApp checking `err.code === 4001` — the
standard way to tell "the user said no" from "something broke" — saw
`undefined`, which makes a wallet the user deliberately declined
indistinguishable from a wallet that failed.

The provider now rejects with an EIP-1193 `ProviderRpcError` carrying the
`code` and, where the boundary sent one, `data`. A class rather than
properties attached to an `Error`: the object crosses no boundary after
construction — it is built in the page's own realm and handed straight to
the caller's catch — so the prototype survives and `name` is a stable thing
for a dApp to see.

Whatever code arrived is passed through verbatim rather than matched
against a list. The background emits 4001, 4100 and 4902 on the RPC path
today; a code added later must reach the page without editing the provider.
An error the background sent with no code stays a plain `Error` with no
`code` property at all — a `ProviderRpcError` whose `code` is `undefined`
would advertise a conformance it does not have. `message` is unchanged in
every case, and nothing the background produces changes.

Every entry point the provider exposes funnels through the one response
listener, so `request`, `enable`, `send` and `sendAsync` are all covered;
tests/inpageErrors.test.js loads the real inpage.js against a stub window
and asserts each of them, both codes and the untouched messages.

The e2e probe added for #183, which printed the missing code on all four
rejected flows rather than asserting it, now requires code 4001 on the
page's Error as well as on the wire. Without the provider change it fails
on all four with "reached the page as an error with no code property at
all".

TODO.md

@@ -45,6 +45,20 @@ undefined identifiers, which is how
 
 # Completed Steps
 
+- 2026-08-12: EIP-1193 error codes now reach the page. `src/content/inpage.js`
+  rebuilt every failure as `new Error(error.message)`, so the code the
+  background produced and the content script relayed intact was dropped in the
+  last hop and a dApp checking `err.code === 4001` saw `undefined` — a wallet
+  the user deliberately declined was indistinguishable from one that broke. The
+  provider now rejects with a `ProviderRpcError` carrying `code` and, where the
+  boundary sent one, `data`, passed through verbatim rather than matched against
+  a list, so 4001, 4100 and 4902 all arrive and a future code needs no edit
+  here. An error the background sent with no code stays a plain `Error` with no
+  `code` property, and `message` is unchanged in every case. All four request
+  entry points (`request`, `enable`, `send`, `sendAsync`) are covered by
+  `tests/inpageErrors.test.js`, and the e2e probe that printed the missing code
+  now requires it on the page's Error as well as on the wire, for all four
+  rejected flows ([#274](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/AutistMask/issues/274)).
 - 2026-08-12: `KNOWN_SYMBOLS` now maps a symbol to the set of contract addresses
   that bear it, not to one of them. A ticker is not unique: seven of the 512
   bundled tokens — `FRAX`, `REUSD`, `TON`, `EURE`, `MSUSD`, `MUSD` and `JPYC` —

src/content/inpage.js

@@ -11,6 +11,39 @@
     let nextId = 1;
     const pending = {};
 
+    // EIP-1193 ProviderRpcError: `code`, `message`, optional `data`. A class
+    // rather than properties bolted onto an Error because this object crosses
+    // no boundary after construction — it is built in the page's own realm and
+    // handed straight to the caller's catch — so the prototype survives and
+    // `error.name` is a stable thing for a dApp to see.
+    class ProviderRpcError extends Error {
+        constructor(code, message, data) {
+            super(message);
+            this.name = "ProviderRpcError";
+            this.code = code;
+            if (data !== undefined) this.data = data;
+        }
+    }
+
+    // Rebuild a boundary error as the error the page catches, carrying the
+    // code (and data) the extension reported. Without this a dApp cannot tell
+    // a user's refusal (4001) from a wallet that broke, and retries or shows
+    // an error instead of accepting the refusal.
+    //
+    // Whatever code arrived is passed through verbatim rather than being
+    // matched against a list: the extension emits 4001, 4100 and 4902 today,
+    // and a code this file has never heard of is still the truth about what
+    // happened. An error reported with no code at all stays a plain Error —
+    // a ProviderRpcError whose `code` is undefined would advertise a
+    // conformance it does not have. `message` is untouched in every case.
+    function toPageError(error) {
+        const message = (error && error.message) || "Request failed";
+        if (error && error.code !== undefined && error.code !== null) {
+            return new ProviderRpcError(error.code, message, error.data);
+        }
+        return new Error(message);
+    }
+
     // Listen for responses from the content script
     window.addEventListener("message", function onUuid(event) {
         if (event.source !== window) return;
@@ -20,7 +53,7 @@
         if (!p) return;
         delete pending[id];
         if (error) {
-            p.reject(new Error(error.message || "Request failed"));
+            p.reject(toPageError(error));
         } else {
             p.resolve(result);
         }

tests/e2e/network.js

@@ -86,9 +86,11 @@ const DAPP_URL = DAPP_ORIGIN + "/";
 // never drive the popup that has to settle it; start() files the promise
 // under a key and settle() collects it once the prompt has been dealt with.
 //
-// The rejection branch records `code` as it arrives. EIP-1193 says a user
-// rejection is a ProviderRpcError carrying code 4001; what the page can
-// actually see is recorded here rather than assumed, and asserted in run.js.
+// The rejection branch records the whole observable shape of the error as it
+// arrives — name, message, and whether a `code` is present at all as distinct
+// from its value. EIP-1193 says a user rejection is a ProviderRpcError
+// carrying code 4001; what the page can actually see is recorded here rather
+// than assumed, and asserted in run.js.
 //
 // The message log is the page's half of the boundary observation: every
 // AUTISTMASK_* message that crosses between this page and the content
@@ -120,6 +122,7 @@ const DAPP_HTML = [
     "                    return {",
     "                        settled: 'rejected',",
     "                        message: String((error && error.message) || error),",
+    "                        name: error ? error.name : undefined,",
     "                        hasCode: !!error && 'code' in Object(error),",
     "                        code: error ? error.code : undefined,",
     "                    };",

tests/e2e/run.js

@@ -1591,15 +1591,14 @@ async function lastResponseError(page) {
 }
 
 // A rejected prompt, asserted at both ends: the page's promise rejected
-// rather than hanging or resolving, and the response that crossed the
-// boundary carried EIP-1193 code 4001.
+// rather than hanging or resolving, and EIP-1193 code 4001 is present both
+// on the wire and on the Error the calling page catches.
 //
-// The code is asserted on the wire because that is the only place it
-// survives. src/content/inpage.js rebuilds the rejection as `new
-// Error(error.message)`, so the Error the calling page catches carries the
-// message and no code. That is reported rather than asserted either way —
-// locking in the current behaviour would make the gap permanent, and
-// asserting the code on the Error would fail today.
+// Both ends matter because they used to disagree. The code crossed the
+// boundary correctly and src/content/inpage.js then threw it away, rebuilding
+// every rejection as `new Error(error.message)` — so a dApp branching on
+// `err.code === 4001` saw undefined and could not tell a refusal from a
+// failure (#274). Asserting only the wire would leave that gap invisible.
 async function assertUserRejection(page, key, label) {
     const outcome = await settleRequest(page, key);
     assert(
@@ -1621,15 +1620,32 @@ async function assertUserRejection(page, key, label) {
             " did not carry EIP-1193 code 4001 across the boundary: " +
             JSON.stringify(error),
     );
+    assert(
+        outcome.hasCode,
+        label +
+            " reached the page as an error with no code property at all, so a " +
+            "dApp cannot tell the user's refusal from a failure: " +
+            JSON.stringify(outcome),
+    );
+    assert(
+        outcome.code === 4001,
+        label +
+            " reached the page with code " +
+            JSON.stringify(outcome.code) +
+            " rather than EIP-1193 4001",
+    );
+    assert(
+        outcome.name === "ProviderRpcError",
+        label +
+            " reached the page as " +
+            JSON.stringify(outcome.name) +
+            " rather than an EIP-1193 ProviderRpcError",
+    );
     console.log(
         "# " +
             label +
-            ": boundary code=" +
-            error.code +
-            " page Error.code=" +
-            JSON.stringify(outcome.code) +
-            " page Error carries a code=" +
-            outcome.hasCode,
+            ": code 4001 on the wire and on the page's " +
+            outcome.name,
     );
     return outcome;
 }

tests/inpageErrors.test.js

@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
+// The EIP-1193 error the page actually catches (src/content/inpage.js).
+//
+// The bug this pins down (issue #274): the provider rebuilt every failure as
+// `new Error(error.message)`, so the `code` the background produced and the
+// content script relayed intact was thrown away in the last hop. A dApp
+// checking `err.code === 4001` — the standard way to tell "the user said no"
+// from "the wallet broke" — saw undefined, and well-behaved sites showed an
+// error or retried instead of accepting the refusal.
+//
+// inpage.js is a bare IIFE injected into the page's JS context, not a module:
+// it takes no import and exports nothing, and reaches for `window` at load.
+// So it is evaluated here the way the browser evaluates it, against a stub
+// window, and the provider is collected from `window.ethereum`. The globals it
+// touches are passed in as function parameters rather than assigned to
+// globalThis: nothing leaks between tests, and the source is compiled in this
+// realm, so the errors it constructs are comparable against this file's own
+// `Error` — which a second realm's intrinsics would silently defeat.
+//
+// There is no jsdom in this repo; see tests/txStatus.test.js.
+
+const fs = require("fs");
+const path = require("path");
+const { webcrypto } = require("crypto");
+
+const SOURCE = fs.readFileSync(
+    path.join(__dirname, "..", "src", "content", "inpage.js"),
+    "utf8",
+);
+
+const loadInto = new Function(
+    "window",
+    "self",
+    "crypto",
+    "Event",
+    "CustomEvent",
+    SOURCE,
+);
+
+class StubEvent {
+    constructor(type) {
+        this.type = type;
+    }
+}
+
+class StubCustomEvent extends StubEvent {
+    constructor(type, init) {
+        super(type);
+        this.detail = init && init.detail;
+    }
+}
+
+// Every code the background emits on the RPC path today, read out of
+// src/background/index.js. The provider must not know this list — it passes
+// through whatever arrived — but the cases below are the real ones.
+const REJECTED = 4001; // user rejected the request
+const UNAUTHORIZED = 4100; // site not connected / wrong address
+const UNRECOGNIZED_CHAIN = 4902; // switch/add to an unsupported chain
+
+// A stub window with the four things inpage.js touches: message listeners,
+// postMessage out to the content script, window.ethereum, and dispatchEvent
+// for the EIP-6963 announcement.
+function loadProvider() {
+    const messageListeners = [];
+    const posted = [];
+
+    const win = {
+        addEventListener(type, fn) {
+            if (type === "message") messageListeners.push(fn);
+        },
+        removeEventListener(type, fn) {
+            const i = messageListeners.indexOf(fn);
+            if (type === "message" && i !== -1) messageListeners.splice(i, 1);
+        },
+        postMessage(data) {
+            posted.push(data);
+        },
+        dispatchEvent() {
+            return true;
+        },
+    };
+    win.window = win;
+
+    loadInto(win, win, webcrypto, StubEvent, StubCustomEvent);
+
+    // Deliver the content script's answer to an outstanding request. The id is
+    // read back off the wire rather than assumed: inpage.js issues its own
+    // eth_chainId at load, so the first id a test sees is not 1.
+    function respond(response) {
+        const request = posted
+            .filter((m) => m.type === "AUTISTMASK_REQUEST")
+            .pop();
+        expect(request).toBeDefined();
+        const event = {
+            source: win,
+            data: { type: "AUTISTMASK_RESPONSE", id: request.id, ...response },
+        };
+        for (const fn of messageListeners.slice()) fn(event);
+    }
+
+    return { provider: win.ethereum, posted, respond };
+}
+
+// Start a request, answer it with `response`, and hand back the rejection.
+// Fails the test if the call resolves instead.
+async function rejectionFrom(start, response) {
+    const { provider, respond } = loadProvider();
+    const settled = start(provider).then(
+        (result) => ({ resolved: result }),
+        (error) => ({ error }),
+    );
+    // The provider posts synchronously, so the request is already on the wire.
+    respond(response);
+    const outcome = await settled;
+    expect(outcome).not.toHaveProperty("resolved");
+    return outcome.error;
+}
+
+describe("an EIP-1193 code reaches the page", () => {
+    test("a user rejection arrives as code 4001", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_requestAccounts" }),
+            {
+                error: {
+                    code: REJECTED,
+                    message: "User rejected the request.",
+                },
+            },
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+        expect(err.message).toBe("User rejected the request.");
+    });
+
+    test("it is a ProviderRpcError, and an Error", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_requestAccounts" }),
+            {
+                error: {
+                    code: REJECTED,
+                    message: "User rejected the request.",
+                },
+            },
+        );
+        expect(err).toBeInstanceOf(Error);
+        expect(err.name).toBe("ProviderRpcError");
+    });
+
+    test("4100 unauthorized arrives intact", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "personal_sign", params: ["0x00"] }),
+            { error: { code: UNAUTHORIZED, message: "Unauthorized" } },
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(UNAUTHORIZED);
+        expect(err.message).toBe("Unauthorized");
+    });
+
+    test("4902 unrecognized chain arrives intact", async () => {
+        const message =
+            "AutistMask supports Ethereum Mainnet and Sepolia Testnet only.";
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "wallet_switchEthereumChain" }),
+            { error: { code: UNRECOGNIZED_CHAIN, message } },
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(UNRECOGNIZED_CHAIN);
+        expect(err.message).toBe(message);
+    });
+
+    // The provider is not allowed to know the list above: a code added to the
+    // background later must reach the page without this file being edited.
+    test("a code the provider has never heard of is passed through", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_accounts" }),
+            { error: { code: 4900, message: "Disconnected" } },
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(4900);
+    });
+
+    test("data is carried when the boundary sent it", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_call" }),
+            {
+                error: {
+                    code: -32000,
+                    message: "execution reverted",
+                    data: "0x08c379a0",
+                },
+            },
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(-32000);
+        expect(err.data).toBe("0x08c379a0");
+    });
+
+    test("no data property is invented when the boundary sent none", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_requestAccounts" }),
+            {
+                error: {
+                    code: REJECTED,
+                    message: "User rejected the request.",
+                },
+            },
+        );
+        expect("data" in err).toBe(false);
+    });
+});
+
+describe("the message is untouched", () => {
+    test("a coded error keeps the message byte for byte", async () => {
+        const message =
+            "This site asked to sign as an address that is not " +
+            "the active one.";
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "personal_sign" }),
+            { error: { code: UNAUTHORIZED, message } },
+        );
+        expect(err.message).toBe(message);
+    });
+
+    test("an error the background sent with no code keeps its message", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_sendTransaction" }),
+            { error: { message: "No accounts available" } },
+        );
+        expect(err.message).toBe("No accounts available");
+    });
+
+    // A ProviderRpcError whose code is undefined would claim a conformance it
+    // does not have, and `'code' in err` is exactly what a careful dApp asks.
+    test("an error with no code gets no code property at all", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_sendTransaction" }),
+            { error: { message: "No accounts available" } },
+        );
+        expect(err).toBeInstanceOf(Error);
+        expect("code" in err).toBe(false);
+    });
+
+    test("an error with no message keeps the generic fallback", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_sendTransaction" }),
+            { error: { code: REJECTED } },
+        );
+        expect(err.message).toBe("Request failed");
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+    });
+});
+
+// Every entry point the provider exposes, not just eth_requestAccounts. They
+// all funnel through the same response listener, and this is what says so.
+describe("every request path carries the code", () => {
+    const rejection = {
+        error: { code: REJECTED, message: "User rejected the request." },
+    };
+
+    test("request()", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.request({ method: "eth_requestAccounts" }),
+            rejection,
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+    });
+
+    test("enable()", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom((p) => p.enable(), rejection);
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+    });
+
+    test("send(method, params)", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.send("eth_requestAccounts", []),
+            rejection,
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+    });
+
+    test("send({ method, params })", async () => {
+        const err = await rejectionFrom(
+            (p) => p.send({ method: "personal_sign", params: ["0x00"] }),
+            rejection,
+        );
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+    });
+
+    test("sendAsync() hands the code to its callback", async () => {
+        const { provider, respond } = loadProvider();
+        const called = new Promise((resolve) => {
+            provider.sendAsync({ id: 1, method: "eth_requestAccounts" }, (e) =>
+                resolve(e),
+            );
+        });
+        respond(rejection);
+        const err = await called;
+        expect(err.name).toBe("ProviderRpcError");
+        expect(err.code).toBe(REJECTED);
+        expect(err.message).toBe("User rejected the request.");
+    });
+});
+
+describe("the success path is unchanged", () => {
+    test("a result still resolves", async () => {
+        const { provider, respond } = loadProvider();
+        const settled = provider.request({ method: "eth_requestAccounts" });
+        respond({ result: ["0xb61264DEFB0c4B8afb3D73724be15310036743a5"] });
+        await expect(settled).resolves.toEqual([
+            "0xb61264DEFB0c4B8afb3D73724be15310036743a5",
+        ]);
+        expect(provider.selectedAddress).toBe(
+            "0xb61264DEFB0c4B8afb3D73724be15310036743a5",
+        );
+    });
+});