refactor(test-benchmarks): ensure SSTORE N->N writes nonzero key/value

[jochem-brouwer]

🗒️ Description

Tweaks benchmarks to fix expectations in repricings. CC @misilva73
Draft, will push more tweaks if more are found after analysis

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ 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: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.
• Tests: For PRs implementing a missed test case, update the post-mortem document to add an entry the list.
• Ported Tests: All converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests or tests/static have been assigned @ported_from marker.

Cute Animal Picture

[misilva73]

I think this one was fine, no? It was writing a different value (Op.GAS) to the same slot (slot 0)

[misilva73]

To properly document this, test_storage_access_cold_benchmark also writes 0->0 in the WRITE_SAME_VALUE variant. However, in this case, since we are always writting to new accounts, I don't think we can easily fix it. Here is the code:

def test_storage_access_cold_benchmark(
    benchmark_test: BenchmarkTestFiller,
    storage_action: StorageAction,
) -> None:
    """
    Benchmark cold storage slot accesses using code generator.

    Each iteration accesses a different storage slot (incrementing key)
    to ensure cold access costs are measured.
    """
    if storage_action == StorageAction.READ:
        attack_block = Op.SLOAD(Op.GAS)
    elif storage_action == StorageAction.WRITE_SAME_VALUE:
        attack_block = Op.SSTORE(Op.GAS, Op.PUSH0)
    elif storage_action == StorageAction.WRITE_NEW_VALUE:
        attack_block = Op.SSTORE(Op.GAS, Op.GAS)

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Hi @misilva73 @jochem-brouwer , what's the issue for these benchmark test, is there anything i could help? what benchmark combination do you need

The current changes looks good to me, i approved and wonder if you'd like to merge first

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.85%. Comparing base (e271298) to head (c2caf0e).
⚠️ Report is 30 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2255      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            86.07%   85.85%   -0.23%     
===================================================
  Files                  599      599              
  Lines                39472    39428      -44     
  Branches              3780     3776       -4     
===================================================
- Hits                 33977    33851     -126     
- Misses                4862     4946      +84     
+ Partials               633      631       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	85.85% <ø> (-0.23%)	⬇️

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.

[jochem-brouwer]

This one can be merged!