feat(benchmark): create pure ether transfer worst case

[LouisTsai-Csie]

🗒️ Description

In Nethermind’s test case, a block is filled with simple Ether transfer transactions, each transferring 1 wei. The purpose of this PR is to reproduce a specific scenario and expand test coverage. Four scenarios are included, as outlined below:

1. Account A sends Ether to itself
2. Account A sends Ether to Account B
3. Account A sends Ether to multiple different accounts
4. Multiple different accounts send Ether to Account A

🔗 Related Issues

Issue #1734

✅ Checklist

• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes.
• All: Considered squashing commits to improve commit history.
• All: Added an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
• All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• Tests: Included the type and version of evm t8n tool used to locally execute test cases: e.g., ref with commit hash or geth 1.13.1-stable-3f40e65.
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.

[marioevz]

Looks good, some comments.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

@marioevz Thanks for the review, I had some update and left a few questions.

[marioevz]

Just echoing the discussion we had in person a few minutes ago:

The solution to not having to know the exact balance at the start of the test is to have a contract call at the start of the block that simply records the starting balance, and then a final contract call after all eth send transactions to get the new balance and store the difference:

from ethereum_test_tools import Conditional
Conditional(
    condition=Op.ISZERO(Op.BALANCE(Op.CALLER)),
    if_true=Op.SSTORE(0, Op.BALANCE(Op.CALLER)),  # First tx, store the starting balance
    if_false=Op.SSTORE(0, Op.SUB(Op.SLOAD(0), Op.BALANCE(Op.CALLER))),  # Second tx, store the diff
)

It would add two transactions to the test, but I feel like preserving the ability for a test to be fillable and executable is important.

EDIT: This solution is broken, see my other comment.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

@marioevz Thanks for your explanation, I've updated with

1. Change the sender/receiver function to iterator
2. Remove the check for the case a_to_a

[marioevz]

Perfect, thanks so much!

I've reviewed the logs and it seems to work exactly as expected.