fix: Migrate API usage from *.metafi & *.metaswap subdomains to *.cx.metamask.io"

[cryptodev-2s]

Explanation

API Platform team intends to deprecate *.metafi and *.metaswap subdomains in favour of *.api.cx.metamask.io
The new *.api.cx.metamask.io is already in place.
The old *.metafi and *.metaswap are still used across the controllers.
Controllers do not break currently because redirects are in place for the older sub-domains.
The redirects will be removed once all clients (Extension, Mobile, Core) are migrated.

References

• Fixes Migrate API usage from *.metafi and *.metaswap subdomains to *.api.cx.metamask.io #4215

Changelog

@metamask/assets-controller

• CHANGED: Update price API endpoint from price-api.metafi.codefi.network to price.api.cx.metamask.io
• CHANGED: Update token icons API endpoint from *.metafi.codefi.network to *.cx.metamask.io
• CHANGED: Update toke API endpoint from token-api.metaswap.codefi.network to token.api.cx.metamask.io

@metamask/phishing-controller

• CHANGED: Update phishing detection API endpoint from *.metafi.codefi.network to *.api.cx.metamask.io

@metamask/controller-utils

• CHANGED: Update OpenSea proxy endpoint from *.metafi.codefi.network to *.api.cx.metamask.io

@metamask/name-controller

• CHANGED: Update token API endpoint from token-api.metaswap.codefi.network to token.api.cx.metamask.io

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

[mikesposito]

Looks good! Just a small question

[kanthesha]

LGTM.

[mikesposito]

These changes should be transparent for external consumers, since the old endpoints should be functionally equivalent to the new ones - so I don't think we should mark them as breaking.

Or do you expect something to break?

[cryptodev-2s]

These changes should be transparent for external consumers, since the old endpoints should be functionally equivalent to the new ones - so I don't think we should mark them as breaking.

Or do you expect something to break?

Yes I agree in somehow this should not be tagged as breaking change but in similar change this was marked as BREAKING PR

[mcmire]

@cryptodev-2s Hmm, I am not sure why they marked the changes as breaking in that PR. That seems like a mistake to me. I had the same understanding as @mikesposito, that the new URL is simply an alias for the old one. I also agree that we should not mark these as breaking.

[mcmire]

I've cross-referenced these URL changes via Slack and they look correct to me.