Cheatcodes tracking issue

[LHerskind]

The people want cheatcodes for testing!

Testing can be a bit of a pain in the neck if insufficient access to data or manipulation is available. Therefore we want to support some of the cheatcodes that Hardhat and Foundry supplies on the L2 as well. Some of the differs a bit from what is seen at https://book.getfoundry.sh/cheatcodes/ as it needs a extra functions for the distinction between private and public data.

I suggest that we create a CheatCode class that implements those functions to make it easily accessible to devs without having to stroll through 10 different classes. Similar to how you can use vm in foundry tests.

Consider:

• adding a cheatcode to skip the constraints in the rollup on global variables.
• having an l1 and an l2 sub class as many of these can be useful for either, for the l1 cheatcodes we should call the anvil cheatcodes directly.

### Cheatcodes: Non-intrusive
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1275
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1276
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1281
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1285
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1288

### Cheatcodes: Intrusive
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1279
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1280
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1282
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1286
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1277
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1278
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1283
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1284

### Misc
- [ ] https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/1458

[iAmMichaelConnor]

I get that this follows foundry's naming choices, but the words aren't very descriptive. etch, warp, roll, prank.
Thoughts on using more descriptive function names?

[LHerskind]

I get that this follows foundry's naming choices, but the words aren't very descriptive. etch, warp, roll, prank. Thoughts on using more descriptive function names?

I prefer to use foundry as we will probably need to support both l1 and l2 cheatcodes, and I don't want to have people relearn terms just for us.

[LHerskind]

I'm closing this issue since we primarily are missing the intrusive cheatcodes which seems much more fit for a testing framework that the mix that is the sandbox.