refactor(test-tests): port EXTCODEHASH dynamicAccountOverwriteEmpty

[chfast]

🗒️ Description

Port the legacy static test:
stExtCodeHash/dynamicAccountOverwriteEmpty_Paris
for EIP-1052 EXTCODEHASH testing.

The test verifies EXTCODEHASH correctly updates when an empty account is overwritten by CREATE2. Modified from original: target account has no storage to avoid EIP-7610 collision behavior.

🔗 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

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.18%. Comparing base (c3813a5) to head (31eefbd).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2032      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            86.14%   86.18%   +0.03%     
===================================================
  Files                  599      599              
  Lines                39472    39472              
  Branches              3780     3780              
===================================================
+ Hits                 34002    34017      +15     
+ Misses                4848     4838      -10     
+ Partials               622      617       -5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.18% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️

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]

Thanks for the PR! I’ve left a few comments suggesting some refactoring using helper functions. Overall, the test logic looks great.

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

I leave a comment about the potential missing coverage for non-empty storage scenario. In the deleted tests/static/state_tests/stExtCodeHash/dynamicAccountOverwriteEmpty_ParisFiller.ym file, i found this pre-alloc setting:

# non-empty storage for target account
c5691dc90d9fd2a2e9a5fa5bd28bf77ffd60aa78:
  balance: '10'
  code: ''
  nonce: '0'
  storage: {
     "0x01": '1'
  }

while in the test this logic is removed.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

The new test format looks good, but in the legacy test the target account (created via CREATE2) had pre-existing storage. We’ve removed that setup, do we lose the coverage here?

I now understand why pytest.mark.pre_alloc_modify is required: we want to configure an account storage via pre.

I’m thinking of parameterizing the cases like this:

@pytest.mark.parametrize(
    "exist_balance, exist_storage",
    [
        pytest.param(True, True, id="collision", marks=pytest.mark.pre_alloc_modify),
        pytest.param(True, False, id="balance_only"),
        pytest.param(False, False, id="non_existent"),
    ],
)

And configuring pre like:

if exist_storage:
    pre[target_address] = Account(balance=10, storage={0: 1})
elif exist_balance:
    pre.fund_address(target_address, 1)

However, this setting keeps failing in fill: it looks like t8n doesn’t handle the initial storage + nonce=0 scenario as I expected. Am I missing something in how pre-state is applied here?

[LouisTsai-Csie]

We could add multiple markers like this, for the pre-alloc modification, we should also skip the execute-remote mode.

pytest.param(
  True,
  True,
  id="collision",
  marks=[
      pytest.mark.pre_alloc_modify,
      pytest.mark.execute(
          pytest.mark.skip(reason="pre-alloc modified")
      ),
  ],
),

[chfast]

I leave a comment about the potential missing coverage for non-empty storage scenario. In the deleted tests/static/state_tests/stExtCodeHash/dynamicAccountOverwriteEmpty_ParisFiller.ym file, i found this pre-alloc setting:

# non-empty storage for target account
c5691dc90d9fd2a2e9a5fa5bd28bf77ffd60aa78:
  balance: '10'
  code: ''
  nonce: '0'
  storage: {
     "0x01": '1'
  }

while in the test this logic is removed.

I dropped the "empty account with storage" because it actually prevents the original scenario. If there is storage, CREATE2 fails. Moreover, the EIP-7610 which describes what happens in this scenario is not final. This is my main motivation for the porting.

I believe if you want test EXTCODEHASH against "empty account with storage" we need separate test. Something that don't overwrite the account with CREATE2.