feat(test): port static context static tests to python

[fselmo]

🗒️ Description

Port STATICCALL tests with zero and non-zero value to precompiles. This has the added bonus of extending the precompiles, parametrized per fork, via pytest.mark.with_all_precompiles.

🔗 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).
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.
• Tests: For PRs implementing a missed test case, update the post-mortem document to add an entry the list.
• Ported Tests: All converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests or tests/static have been assigned @ported_from marker.

Cute Animal Picture

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.16%. Comparing base (c14e9c9) to head (b56350b).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #1960      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            86.07%   86.16%   +0.09%     
===================================================
  Files                  599      599              
  Lines                39527    39527              
  Branches              3780     3780              
===================================================
+ Hits                 34021    34059      +38     
+ Misses                4872     4847      -25     
+ Partials               634      621      -13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.16% <ø> (+0.09%)	⬆️

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.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Leave some comments! It is really crazy that old test is written in yml format.

[marioevz]

Some small comments that can be applied to all test functions in the PR. Thanks!

[marioevz]

We should also use Conditional here to have more readable code, no need to try to match the exact original bytecode IMO.

[fselmo]

The goal here was to preserve the original test and to get it in our API so it is more readable. We then created a version of the test, test_staticcall_reentrant_call_with_value_to_precompile(), that is more readable and does a similar thing while extending coverage.

If we don't care about keeping the exact bytecode that caught a bug once upon a time, then we can keep the variant of the test that is most readable. To be clear, I would prefer to keep the actual bytecode for added safety and for historical reasons. But if we don't want to try to match the original bytecode, I think we can remove this test case entirely.

[fselmo]

@marioevz I applied all the changes you suggested here. I opted to remove the first test entirely since we don't care about preserving the actual bytecode. We should carefully review to make sure it's covering the same case as the original test if this is the route we want to take.

---

edit: I had to add an update to the pytest.param() support for valid_from() because docs pulls in all forks and this was erring with the marker for with_all_valid_precompiles in conjunction with valid_from() being in the params. It wouldn't have this fork range updated and some forks don't support precompiles at all. It's a minor change here, but we should make sure it is reviewed appropriately.

[fselmo]

The goal here was to preserve the original test and to get it in our API so it is more readable. We then created a version of the test, test_staticcall_reentrant_call_with_value_to_precompile(), that is more readable and does a similar thing while extending coverage.

If we don't care about keeping the exact bytecode that caught a bug once upon a time, then we can keep the variant of the test that is most readable. To be clear, I would prefer to keep the actual bytecode for added safety and for historical reasons. But if we don't want to try to match the original bytecode, I think we can remove this test case entirely.

[fselmo]

I also added BAL expectations here since these were of interest to BALs originally, which is why it caught my eye to port them in the first place.

More recently (since this PR was opened), geth caught an implementation issue because of these static tests (relevant conversation here).

[marioevz]

LGTM. I made one last push to change the test types to StateTest while preserving the BAL checks.

Comments have been addressed, and we have a separate newer review.