op-e2e,interop: Test safe block replacement of cascading invalid blocks

[ghost]

This tests that if a safe block is cross-invalid because one of its dependencies is cross-invalid:

1. Both blocks are replaced
2. Both replacement blocks become cross-safe

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 42.37%. Comparing base (ef21b9b) to head (aa3dd3e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #14949      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    46.46%   42.37%   -4.10%     
===========================================
  Files         1149      977     -172     
  Lines        98730    88526   -10204     
===========================================
- Hits         45877    37512    -8365     
+ Misses       49563    47887    -1676     
+ Partials      3290     3127     -163     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cannon-go-tests-32	?
cannon-go-tests-64	?
contracts-bedrock-tests	?

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

see 178 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[axelKingsley]

Looks good, I follow along:

• A1 exists and is fine
• B1 exists and is fine
• A2 makes a valid reference onto B2
• B2 has that reference, but makes a different invalid reference

A2 and B2 are both invalid, and we can see they are replaced by the heads advancing, the block hashes changing, and the tx not being included.

If you wanted, you could stop the Sync calls part way through to confirm that one chain has done the replacement while the other hasn't yet. Not sure it's needed tho.

Should also get @Inphi 's opinion to make sure this test does what they originally meant.

[Inphi]

Thank you so much for highlighting the issue with the test and fixing it.
As a bonus, I can now confirm that the fault proof program works in this case. I'll follow up on updating FP tests in another PR.

[Inphi]

just one more thing, I wanna confirm that is indeed a non-issue in the flip case. Could you please add a similar test case where the invalid executing message is included on chain A rather than chain B?