refactor(tests): tx_gas and cold_gas for gas_test generator

[pdobacz]

🗒️ Description

gas_test generator had some gas values hardcoded and wasn't immune to gas repricings. This PR should provide tx_gas based on forks gas_cost values.

Also, it allows to specify cold_gas=0 to test opcodes like REVERT, and unlocks some standard gas cost tests

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

• All: Ran fast tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:

  uvx tox -e static

• All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (6333758) to head (5c46d04).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2083      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            88.17%   88.62%   +0.45%     
===================================================
  Files                  577      577              
  Lines                35659    35659              
  Branches              3490     3490              
===================================================
+ Hits                 31442    31604     +162     
+ Misses                3654     3492     -162     
  Partials               563      563              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	88.62% <ø> (+0.45%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[marioevz]

@spencer-tb I think this is going to be affected by EIP-8037, could you take a look pls?

[LouisTsai-Csie]

I think we could use bytecode.gas_cost(fork) for this helper, as i notice these values are calculated manually:

gas_costs = fork.gas_costs()
    opcode_gas_cost = gas_costs.GAS_BASE
    opcode_pop_cost = gas_costs.GAS_BASE
    opcode_push_cost = gas_costs.GAS_VERY_LOW
    gas_single_gas_run = (
        2 * opcode_gas_cost
        + opcode_pop_cost
        + gas_costs.GAS_WARM_ACCOUNT_ACCESS
        + 6 * opcode_push_cost
    )

Some example:

the code

execution-specs/tests/benchmark/stateful/bloatnet/test_multi_opcode.py

Lines 488 to 506 in c74dfbe

	sstore_loop = While(
	body=(
	Op.MSTORE(64, Op.MLOAD(32))
	+ Op.POP(
	Op.CALL(
	address=erc20_address,
	value=0,
	args_offset=28,
	args_size=68,
	ret_offset=0,
	ret_size=0,
	# gas accounting
	address_warm=True,
	)
	)
	+ Op.MSTORE(32, Op.ADD(Op.MLOAD(32), 1))
	),
	condition=DECREMENT_COUNTER_CONDITION,
	)

the gas accounting

execution-specs/tests/benchmark/stateful/bloatnet/test_multi_opcode.py

Lines 512 to 516 in c74dfbe

	# Gas Accounting
	setup_cost = setup.gas_cost(fork)
	sload_loop_cost = sload_loop.gas_cost(fork)
	transition_cost = transition.gas_cost(fork)
	sstore_loop_cost = sstore_loop.gas_cost(fork)

[pdobacz]

Applied the suggestion about gas_single_gas_run, rebased, ready for review

[pdobacz]

@LouisTsai-Csie @spencer-tb @marioevz - gentle ping on this - should I try to get this rebased and mergeable or is there anything blocking this?

[LouisTsai-Csie]

@pdobacz I am sorry for late response, could you please rebase again, and let me know when it is ready for review again? I would keep track of this issue to merge, thank you

[pdobacz]

@LouisTsai-Csie np, done!

[LouisTsai-Csie]

LGTM, thank you!