Add EIPs to CFI, based on ACD150

[timbeiko]

Decided on ethereum/pm#662

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 68.75% // Head: 72.04% // Increases project coverage by +3.29% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (b6ca5c1) compared to base (333baf1).
Patch coverage: 97.97% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #656      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.75%   72.04%   +3.29%     
==========================================
  Files         481      518      +37     
  Lines       26836    29051    +2215     
==========================================
+ Hits        18451    20930    +2479     
+ Misses       8385     8121     -264     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	72.04% <97.97%> (+3.29%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ethereum/arrow_glacier/spec.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/ethereum/gray_glacier/spec.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/ethereum/muir_glacier/spec.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/utils/hexadecimal.py	87.50% <87.50%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/spec.py	92.61% <92.61%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/utils/message.py	96.00% <96.00%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/vm/gas.py	96.34% <96.34%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/vm/interpreter.py	96.63% <96.63%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/state.py	97.34% <97.34%> (ø)
src/ethereum/paris/trie.py	97.79% <97.79%> (ø)
... and 43 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[moodysalem]

i think the change in definition warrants a reclassification of those EIPs already in this category, for example i think transient storage was CFI for shanghai meaning that assuming it did not delay shanghai or present issues during testing it would be included, but this change makes that far less clear

[timbeiko]

@moodysalem in the interest of providing an accurate view of where things are at sooner rather than later, I think I'd merge it as is. On the next ACD, I expect we'll have a clear list of what's included in Shanghai and a rough idea of what to do about other EIPs. It makes sense to revamp CFI for the next fork (as we do a bunch of other process changes as well). For 1153 specifically, I don't think it should change what we do: next step is to get it on devnets along with everything else!