feat(cheatcodes): add vm.assumeNoRevert for fuzz tests

[grandizzy]

Motivation

Closes #4090
Closes #7246

Similar with assume cheatcode, but for discarding inputs in fuzz runs that reverts:

    /// Discard this run's fuzz inputs and generate new ones if next call reverted.
    function assumeNoRevert() external pure;

Solution

• split assume* cheatcodes in separate mod
• in call_end, if assumeNoRevert cheatcode set, discard run if we're at the same depth as cheatcode and call reverted by returning result with MAGIC_ASSUME output (caught by fuzz and invariant tests and discarded). If call didn't revert then reset chetcode state and continue test
• unit tests

[klkvr]

should this only re-run if next call reverts? went through issues and seems like this is the common usecase, current version might result in footguns, especially given that sometimes it's hard to craft an array with addresses whitelist

[grandizzy]

should this only re-run if next call reverts? went through issues and seems like this is the common usecase, current version might result in footguns, especially given that sometimes it's hard to craft an array with addresses whitelist

I think this makes sense, was looking at #7246 (comment) comment and thought we may want to provide same behavior as when setting fail_on_revert=false but since this is a cheatcode is better to have the next call consistency. I reworked PR to reflect such, please check.

[mds1]

Spec sgtm, and do we also increment the rejects counter the same way? A single test rejects counter for this + vm.assume seems like the best UX, to keep it simple

[grandizzy]

Spec sgtm, and do we also increment the rejects counter the same way? A single test rejects counter for this + vm.assume seems like the best UX, to keep it simple

yep, the rejects counter is incremented same way and shared by both assumes

[mattsse]

lgtm, pending @klkvr