✨ feat(tests): EIP-7928 tests targeting EIP-4788

[raxhvl]

🗒️ Description

This PR add tests for the effects of EIP-4788 beacon roots on EIP-7928.

Blocked by

• EIP-7928 BAL does NOT include system contract addresss #1886
• EIP-7928 BAL does not record EIP-4788 timestamp read operation for invalid queries #1889

🔗 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: Considered adding an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
• All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

Cute Animal Picture

    |
    \\ A _.-''.-""
    /`''`    /
   |__  @)   |
    '-....--'\
              \
              |

[fselmo]

This needs a good rebase with the current state of ethereum/execution-specs branch eips/amsterdam/eip-7928 but the cases here look good to me 👍🏼. Perhaps we should have a file more appropriately generalized for test_block_access_lists_system_contracts.py? I feel like the scope of the 4788 is too narrow to warrant its own file. Thoughts?

[fselmo]

Ah I missed the withdrawal tests altogether. I will look again when this is rebased. Unless there were no added tests there. Maybe we should rename that one to system_contracts and add these new cases there?

[raxhvl]

Id suggest we create a housekeeping issue to organize tests as you seem fit, we can clean up once we have a more stable amsterdam base. These interim new files per PR makes for a pleasant rebasing experience.

I have rebased this PR.

Do you think test_bal_4788_query is getting complicated and we should break it down? We still need to add a malformed timestamp case that we discussed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.25%. Comparing base (aeae151) to head (5578e33).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on eips/amsterdam/eip-7928.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                     Coverage Diff                     @@
##           eips/amsterdam/eip-7928    #1887      +/-   ##
===========================================================
- Coverage                    86.32%   86.25%   -0.08%     
===========================================================
  Files                          538      538              
  Lines                        34561    34561              
  Branches                      3224     3224              
===========================================================
- Hits                         29835    29809      -26     
- Misses                        4152     4165      +13     
- Partials                       574      587      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.25% <ø> (-0.08%)	⬇️

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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[fselmo]

Looks really close, just a few things to round out before merging 👍🏼

[raxhvl]

@fselmo Thanks for the review. I have resolved everything.

[fselmo]

This lgtm, thanks! Looks like there are some merge conflicts. Can you fix those and we can squash merge @raxhvl?

[fselmo]

@raxhvl nevermind, I was able to use the web editor here on github pretty easily to accept both changes. I will merge once some CI passes to make sure it's clean 👍🏼