fix: honour a dust threshold of 0 and compare addresses case-insensitively (closes #179)

Two defects in the anti-poisoning filters, both silent over-filtering: the
wallet hid transactions the user had asked to see.

A dust threshold of 0 was read as `filters.dustThresholdGwei || 100000`, so
the one value a user would pick to mean "show everything" was swallowed and
replaced by the default. It is now `??`, making 0 a real threshold that hides
nothing and agrees exactly with clearing the hide-dust checkbox. The Settings
input rejects empty, negative, fractional and non-numeric entries outright
instead of coercing them, and resyncs the field to the stored value so it
never displays a threshold the wallet is not using.

isSpoofedSymbol compared the contract address with `===` against a lowercased
known address. EIP-55 mixed case is a checksum, not identity, so a genuine
token arriving checksummed was classified as a spoof and hidden. All address
comparisons in the module now go through one normalizeAddress helper, which
also normalises the fraud contracts recorded from a detected spoof.

Tests cover threshold 0 versus unset versus a set value, and the contract
comparison in lowercase, uppercase and EIP-55 form as well as against a
genuinely different address. The two `current behaviour:` tests pinning the
old behaviour are inverted into regression guards, and a fixture pairing a
real contract address with a null holder count pins the `tx.holders !== null`
guard that no fixture previously reached.

tests/transactions.test.js

@@ -329,18 +329,42 @@ describe("known-symbol spoof verification", () => {
         expect(result.newFraudContracts).toEqual([]);
     });
 
-    // Documents current behaviour, not desired behaviour: the spoof check
-    // compares tx.contractAddress against a lowercased known address with
-    // ===, so a caller passing a checksummed address for a genuine token has
-    // it treated as a spoof.  In the app this cannot happen because
-    // parseTokenTransfer lowercases, but the exported function is not
-    // defensive about it the way the blocklist check is.
-    test("current behaviour: a checksummed genuine contract is treated as a spoof", () => {
-        const genuineButChecksummed = tokenTx({
+    // Regression guard (#179): EIP-55 mixed case is a checksum over the
+    // address, not part of its identity, so the contract comparison must be
+    // case-insensitive in both directions — a genuine token in any casing is
+    // genuine, and a spoof cannot escape detection by changing its casing.
+    test("a genuine contract in all-lowercase form is not a spoof", () => {
+        const tx = tokenTx({ contractAddress: USDC_CONTRACT });
+        expect(filterTransactions([tx], filters()).transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+    });
+
+    test("a genuine contract in EIP-55 checksummed form is not a spoof", () => {
+        const tx = tokenTx({
             contractAddress: "0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48",
         });
-        const result = filterTransactions([genuineButChecksummed], filters());
+        const result = filterTransactions([tx], filters());
+        expect(result.transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+        expect(result.newFraudContracts).toEqual([]);
+    });
+
+    test("a genuine contract in all-uppercase form is not a spoof", () => {
+        const tx = tokenTx({
+            contractAddress: "0X" + USDC_CONTRACT.slice(2).toUpperCase(),
+        });
+        const result = filterTransactions([tx], filters());
+        expect(result.transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+        expect(result.newFraudContracts).toEqual([]);
+    });
+
+    test("a genuinely different contract claiming USDC is still a spoof in any casing", () => {
+        const tx = tokenTx({
+            contractAddress: "0xD05339F9EA5AB9D9F03B9D57F671D2ABD1F55C82",
+        });
+        const result = filterTransactions([tx], filters());
         expect(result.transactions).toEqual([]);
+        // The recorded fraud contract is normalised, so the persisted
+        // blocklist matches later transfers whatever casing they arrive in.
+        expect(result.newFraudContracts).toEqual([FAKE_ETH_CONTRACT]);
     });
 
     // Documents current behaviour: README.md:810-814 says all four filters
@@ -412,6 +436,21 @@ describe("low-holder token filtering (the 1,000-holder rule)", () => {
         expect(tx.holders).toBeNull();
         expect(filterTransactions([tx], filters()).transactions).toEqual([tx]);
     });
+
+    // Regression guard (#179): an unknown holder count on a real token — the
+    // explorer rate-limited the call, or a self-hosted instance omits the
+    // field — must not be read as zero holders.  Reading it that way hides a
+    // legitimate transfer from the user's history, the same over-filtering
+    // harm as the zero-threshold bug.  This pins the `tx.holders !== null`
+    // guard, which no fixture previously reached.
+    test("a token whose holder count is unknown is not filtered", () => {
+        const tx = tokenTx({
+            symbol: NOVEL_SPAM_SYMBOL,
+            contractAddress: NOVEL_SPAM_CONTRACT,
+            holders: null,
+        });
+        expect(filterTransactions([tx], filters()).transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+    });
 });
 
 describe("fraud contract blocklist", () => {
@@ -575,16 +614,50 @@ describe("dust threshold filtering", () => {
         expect(filterTransactions([tx], filters()).transactions).toEqual([tx]);
     });
 
-    // Documents current behaviour: the threshold is read as
-    // `filters.dustThresholdGwei || 100000`, so a user who sets the threshold
-    // to 0 (the natural way to ask for no dust filtering while leaving the
-    // toggle on) silently gets the 100,000 gwei default instead.
-    test("current behaviour: a threshold of 0 falls back to the 100,000 gwei default", () => {
-        const result = filterTransactions(
-            [dustOf(50)],
+    // Regression guard (#179): 0 is a real threshold meaning "hide nothing",
+    // not an absent one.  It used to be swallowed by `|| 100000`, so the one
+    // value a user would pick to see everything was the one that did not
+    // work.
+    test("a threshold of 0 hides nothing, leaving the toggle on", () => {
+        const dust = dustOf(50);
+        const zero = dustOf(0);
+        const opts = filters({ dustThresholdGwei: 0 });
+        expect(filterTransactions([dust], opts).transactions).toEqual([dust]);
+        expect(filterTransactions([zero], opts).transactions).toEqual([zero]);
+    });
+
+    test("a threshold of 0 agrees with clearing the hide-dust checkbox", () => {
+        const tx = nativeDustTransfer();
+        const thresholdZero = filterTransactions(
+            [tx],
             filters({ dustThresholdGwei: 0 }),
         );
-        expect(result.transactions).toEqual([]);
+        const toggleOff = filterTransactions(
+            [tx],
+            filters({ hideDustTransactions: false }),
+        );
+        expect(thresholdZero.transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+        expect(toggleOff.transactions).toEqual([tx]);
+    });
+
+    test("0, unset and a set threshold are three distinct behaviours", () => {
+        const tx = dustOf(50);
+        expect(
+            filterTransactions([tx], filters({ dustThresholdGwei: 0 }))
+                .transactions,
+        ).toEqual([tx]);
+        expect(
+            filterTransactions([tx], filters({ dustThresholdGwei: undefined }))
+                .transactions,
+        ).toEqual([]);
+        expect(
+            filterTransactions([tx], filters({ dustThresholdGwei: 40 }))
+                .transactions,
+        ).toEqual([tx]);
+        expect(
+            filterTransactions([tx], filters({ dustThresholdGwei: 60 }))
+                .transactions,
+        ).toEqual([]);
     });
 });