fix(test): avoid mutation of global int256 variable

[mmsqe]

Description

to avoid fail test like #830 #839

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• tackled an existing issue or discussed with a team member
• left instructions on how to review the changes
• targeted the main branch

[mmsqe]

@aljo242 actually need merge #840 1st

[cloudgray]

@mmsqe
This is quite a shocking discovery.

I can’t believe that common.U2560 had a non-zero value assigned to it and was causing interference between different test cases…

Thanks to this, we can remove the temporary workarounds in the other PRs (#837, #840) and finally address the root cause!

[mmsqe]

@mmsqe This is quite a shocking discovery.

I can’t believe that common.U2560 had a non-zero value assigned to it and was causing interference between different test cases…

Thanks to this, we can remove the temporary workarounds in the other PRs (#837, #840) and finally address the root cause!

Not sure why temporary, we need both fixes to ensure test isolation and avoid global mutation right?

[cloudgray]

Not sure why temporary, we need both fixes to ensure test isolation and avoid global mutation right?

@mmsqe

• Even taking test isolation into consideration, this situation seems highly abnormal and exceptional.
• Under normal circumstances, when the app is initialized, the module account balance should be zero, and the very idea of handling a case where it is not zero feels incorrect.
• Moreover, the balance-adjusting workaround is not applied to all accounts — it only applies to the precisebank module account. Since this workaround was introduced solely to deal with the underlying issue of the global variable being overwritten, I believe it is best to roll it back once that root cause is resolved.
• I also think this is preferable because future developers who encounter this balance-adjusting helper function without understanding its context will have a hard time grasping why it exists in the first place.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 65.15%. Comparing base (5ca1990) to head (c4b72bb).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #842      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.03%   65.15%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         317      317              
  Lines       21615    21608       -7     
==========================================
+ Hits        14057    14078      +21     
+ Misses       6365     6364       -1     
+ Partials     1193     1166      -27     

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[aljo242]

@mmsqe @cloudgray good to merge?

[cloudgray]

LGTM!

FYI, I'll close PR #839 .
Because this pr solved problem clearly so we don't need PR #839 anymore.

good to merge?
@aljo242 Yes!