feat(benchmarks): fix bytecode attack for EXT-like opcodes to work in Osaka

[jsign]

🗒️ Description

This PR builds on the work in #1850 to fix the remaining EXT* mechanisms for accessing unchunkified bytecode.

After thinking it over, it makes sense to unify the benchmarks as initially done. The benchmark code is the same. I also think that the primary goal of the benchmark is not "generic usage" of these opcodes, but specifically on the unchunkified bytecode scenario, so I changed the benchmark name accordingly.

If this isn't convincing, I can keep them split and extract the whole internal logic to some other place and use it literally for both EXT* and CALL*. I just think that's quite awkard and why I ended up unifying and deciding on a more meaningful name on the scenario being benchmarked.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

#1695

✅ 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: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.33%. Comparing base (2c83b84) to head (8f4a06b).
⚠️ Report is 76 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #1971   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            86.33%   86.33%           
================================================
  Files                  538      538           
  Lines                34557    34557           
  Branches              3222     3222           
================================================
  Hits                 29835    29835           
  Misses                4148     4148           
  Partials               574      574           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.33% <ø> (ø)

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]

Hi @jsign, i agree with your point about the unchunkified scenario, putting these opcodes together makes sense from a benchmark perspective, since they are testing very similar behavior.

One possible option is to move related test into tests/benchmark/compute/scenario and named as you proposed, test_unchunkified_bytecode. The existing files may not really fit this scenario, feel free to add a new one if necessary.

[jsign]

@LouisTsai-Csie, done!

[LouisTsai-Csie]

LGTM!