Tests: Fix handling of empty local state in TestResourcesDataApp

[michaeldiamant]

Fixes the failed TestResourcesDataApp test run from https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/algorand/go-algorand/10048/workflows/dab1223e-f91d-4865-8824-ab00327a41f1/jobs/176490 by modifying the test to account for empty local state.

Notes:

• https://github.com/algorand/go-algorand/pull/4669/files#diff-f98dee0358238dafbdeae29c761862fbc496f0af2335d85cdec69954a82ba848R214 generates an input that was previously not generated: NumUint = 0 and NumByteSlice = 0.
• With NumUint = 0 and NumByteSlice = 0, IsEmptyAppFields returns true. I assume that's the intended behavior.
• Rather than change the input generation scheme for the test, I chose to branch the test on appState.Schema.NumEntries() == 0.
• Additionally - I coarsely wrapped the test invocation in a for-loop to run N-times due to the usage of randomly generated inputs.
  • If folks prefer, I can remove the wrapping for-loop. I think it'll help catch regressions, but I'm not tied to it.
  • I did consider other refactorings, but settled on the shown approach because I didn't feel more effort was warranted now. If folks wish to discuss, I can elaborate on alternatives.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4699 (18f34b5) into master (ad08f74) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4699      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.49%   54.44%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         407      407              
  Lines       52389    52389              
==========================================
- Hits        28548    28521      -27     
- Misses      21455    21479      +24     
- Partials     2386     2389       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
ledger/blockqueue.go	85.63% <0.00%> (-2.88%)	⬇️
agreement/cryptoVerifier.go	67.60% <0.00%> (-2.12%)	⬇️
agreement/proposalManager.go	96.07% <0.00%> (-1.97%)	⬇️
ledger/acctupdates.go	68.85% <0.00%> (-1.35%)	⬇️
catchup/peerSelector.go	98.95% <0.00%> (-1.05%)	⬇️
data/transactions/verify/txn.go	76.19% <0.00%> (-0.96%)	⬇️
ledger/tracker.go	74.04% <0.00%> (-0.86%)	⬇️
cmd/tealdbg/debugger.go	72.69% <0.00%> (-0.81%)	⬇️
catchup/service.go	68.88% <0.00%> (-0.50%)	⬇️
network/wsNetwork.go	65.34% <0.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[jannotti]

I think it's fine. it'd be slightly easier to read the diff w/o the for-loop, but I'm assuming I found the changes by looking only at the inserted if statements,