tests: Support EIP-7934 - MAX_RLP_BLOCK_SIZE

[pdobacz]

https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7934

Since evmone doesn't decode RLP blocks, but always uses rlp_decoded, the rlp bytes are not managed, just the size used for the limit check.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.07%. Comparing base (d561fcb) to head (ebf8444).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
test/blockchaintest/blockchaintest_runner.cpp	0.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #1329 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 87.07% 87.07% -0.01%  ========================================== Files 169 169 Lines 24810 24820 +10 Branches 4075 4076 +1 ========================================== + Hits 21603 21611 +8  - Misses 547 548 +1  - Partials 2660 2661 +1 

Flag	Coverage Δ
eest-develop	84.17% <ø> (ø)
eest-develop-gmp	15.84% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
eest-legacy	11.11% <42.85%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
eest-legacy-silkpre	17.57% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
evmone-unittests	83.69% <78.57%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
core	93.55% <ø> (ø)
tooling	86.14% <75.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
tests	84.13% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
test/blockchaintest/blockchaintest_loader.cpp	93.43% <100.00%> (+0.24%)	⬆️
test/unittests/blockchaintest_loader_test.cpp	86.55% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
test/blockchaintest/blockchaintest_runner.cpp	67.15% <0.00%> (-0.50%)	⬇️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[pdobacz]

@chfast re the coverage miss - EEST tests do not count towards coverage of blockchaintest files, so the new line is missed (along with many others in this file.) How should we approach this?

[chfast]

@chfast re the coverage miss - EEST tests do not count towards coverage of blockchaintest files, so the new line is missed (along with many others in this file.) How should we approach this?

This logic should not be there, but it is fine for now. I will do manual review for the coverage report. This will also check the coverage of the edge values.

[pdobacz]

This logic should not be there, but it is fine for now. I will do manual review for the coverage report. This will also check the coverage of the edge values.

Do you mean by that that we should look towards refactoring all the block/state logic into a new lib (not to evmone I guess, to keep it EVM only) or that that particular check should be elsewhere?

[chfast]

This logic should not be there, but it is fine for now. I will do manual review for the coverage report. This will also check the coverage of the edge values.

Do you mean by that that we should look towards refactoring all the block/state logic into a new lib (not to evmone I guess, to keep it EVM only) or that that particular check should be elsewhere?

Yes. I'm thinking about this for a long time. It is mostly for the new API targeting full transactions. But we also have some validation code which we can expose (can be the same lib).