starknet_os_flow_tests: add control for expected reverting txs

[dorimedini-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[dorimedini-starkware]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• starknet_os_flow_tests: change FlowTestTx to enum #9501
• starknet_os_flow_tests: migrate test_v1_bound_accounts_cairo1 #9496
• starknet_os_flow_tests: add V1-bound cairo1 account for flow tests #9495
• starknet_api: fix compiler->SNAPI contract class ABI string conversion for tests #9494
• starknet_os_flow_tests: migrate test_v1_bound_accounts_cairo0 #9493
• starknet_os_flow_tests: split get_class_info_of_cairo0_contract into function #9492
• starknet_os_flow_tests: more informative execution failure #9491
• starknet_os_flow_tests: add V1-bound cairo0 account for flow tests #9490
• starknet_os_flow_tests: localize expected storage updates in test_os_logic #9485
• starknet_os_flow_tests: migrate test_os_logic and some small refactors #9484
• blockifier_test_utils: add functionality to test contract for test_os_logic #9483
• blockifier_test_utils: add test_contract2 cairo0 contract #9482
• blockifier_test_utils: add delegate_proxy cairo0 contract #9481
• starknet_os_flow_tests: add control for expected reverting txs #9480 👈 (View in Graphite)
• starknet_os_flow_tests: migrate test_reverted_l1_handler_tx #9474
• starknet_os_flow_tests: migrate test_reverted_invoke_tx #9473
• starknet_os_flow_tests: reduce boilerplate with perform_default_validations #9472
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @amosStarkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/tests.rs line 273 at r1 (raw file):

        sender_address: *FUNDED_ACCOUNT_ADDRESS,
        nonce: nonce_manager.next(*FUNDED_ACCOUNT_ADDRESS),
        calldata: create_calldata(test_contract_address, "write_and_revert", &[Felt::ONE, Felt::TWO]),

was previously reverted, but for the wrong reason (missing params)

Code quote:

 &[Felt::ONE, Felt::TWO]

[TzahiTaub]

@TzahiTaub reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, 2 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @amosStarkware)

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 94 at r3 (raw file):

    tx: BlockifierTransaction,
    revert_reason: Option<String>,
}

Just to ask, do you think the optional field is better than having an enum for the entire tx? With something like this pseudo?

Suggestion:

pub(crate) enum FlowTestTx {
    succesful/accepted({tx: BlockifierTransaction})
    reverted({
    tx: BlockifierTransaction,
    revert_reason: String}
}

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 445 at r3 (raw file):

    fn verify_execution_outputs(
        revert_reasons: &[Option<String>],
        execution_outputs: &[(TransactionExecutionInfo, StateMaps)],

Please verify that both slices are of the same length

Code quote:

        revert_reasons: &[Option<String>],
        execution_outputs: &[(TransactionExecutionInfo, StateMaps)],

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 529 at r3 (raw file):

                .into_iter()
                .map(|flow_test_tx| (flow_test_tx.tx, flow_test_tx.revert_reason))
                .unzip();

Suggestion:

            let (block_txs, revert_reasons): (Vec<_>, Vec<_>) = block_txs_with_reason
                .into_iter()
                .map(|flow_test_tx| (flow_test_tx.tx, flow_test_tx.revert_reason))
                .unzip();
            // Clone the block info for later use.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewable status: 1 of 3 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @amosStarkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 94 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, TzahiTaub (Tzahi) wrote…

Just to ask, do you think the optional field is better than having an enum for the entire tx? With something like this pseudo?

PTAL - refactored at the top of this stack.
not sure it is better, LMK what you think?

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 445 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, TzahiTaub (Tzahi) wrote…

Please verify that both slices are of the same length

Done.

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 529 at r3 (raw file):

                .into_iter()
                .map(|flow_test_tx| (flow_test_tx.tx, flow_test_tx.revert_reason))
                .unzip();

Done.

[TzahiTaub]

@TzahiTaub reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @amosStarkware)

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 94 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

PTAL - refactored at the top of this stack.
not sure it is better, LMK what you think?

Well, in the PR it just adds more code and doesn't seem to simplify things, so I guess leaving it as is is better.

[AvivYossef-starkware]

@AvivYossef-starkware reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @amosStarkware)

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 93 at r3 (raw file):

pub(crate) struct FlowTestTx {
    tx: BlockifierTransaction,
    revert_reason: Option<String>,

Suggestion:

expected_revert_reason: Option<String>

---

crates/starknet_os_flow_tests/src/test_manager.rs line 333 at r3 (raw file):

        &mut self,
        tx: DeclareTransaction,
        compiled_class_hash: CompiledClassHash,

Unrelated q:
What is this compiled_class_hash?
Cairo O contracts shouldn't have it.

Code quote:

 compiled_class_hash: CompiledClassHash