fix(state): Remove workarounds for storing trees

[upbqdn]

Motivation

We were using some workarounds for committing trees into the non-finalized state. Namely, we turned off asserting that we don't commit more than a single tree at a particular height in tests. It would be great to have this resolved before we do the tree deduplication.

Solution

This PR removes the workarounds and fixes tests so they don't push more than a single block at a particular height.

Review

Reviewer Checklist

• Will the PR name make sense to users?
  • Does it need extra CHANGELOG info? (new features, breaking changes, large changes)
• Are the PR labels correct?
• Does the code do what the ticket and PR says?
  • Does it change concurrent code, unsafe code, or consensus rules?
• How do you know it works? Does it have tests?

[teor2345]

Thanks for these fixes!

I just committed one typo fix.

[teor2345]

Hmm, looks like 3 proptests failed for 3 different reasons?

---- service::non_finalized_state::tests::prop::forked_equals_pushed_genesis stdout ----
The application panicked (crashed).
Message: hash is present
Location: zebra-state/src/service/non_finalized_state/tests/prop.rs:206

https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/actions/runs/5570108032/jobs/10174308429?pr=7218#step:4:4059

We didn't get a proptest seed out of these tests, so we might need to run a few tests to make sure we've fixed this completely.

[upbqdn]

It looks like it's two proptests, but the log contains three entries because one of the tests panicked in an expect, which got reported, and that made the test fail, which got reported again.

I ran both protests five times locally, and none of them failed once. :/ I think I found the issue for both failures, though. I pushed a fix.

[teor2345]

I ran both protests five times locally, and none of them failed once. :/ I think I found the issue for both failures, though. I pushed a fix.

I usually run all the related proptests in a loop for a few thousand iterations, overnight or while I'm doing other work.

[teor2345]

Let's try it and see

[teor2345]

This was automatically marked with extra-reviews because it contains the word "remove", but it doesn't actually remove any user-visible features.