Debug logger namespace standardization

[scorbajio]

This change addresses the issues raised in #3689.

[scorbajio]

The logger namespaces are now using lowercase tags.

trie:

  trie:find_path || Stack: ExtensionNode, BranchNode, BranchNode, BranchNode, LeafNode +0ms
  trie Setting root to 0x96ce81d93272f41719326f5cd4333c88f7ad403cc4404efc0fa62ffb10a88035 +2ms
  trie:put Key: 0x0c222c +0ms
  trie:put Value: 0x0c222c +0ms
  trie:find_path Target (6): [0,12,2,2,2,12] +0ms
  trie:find_path Walking trie from ROOT: 0x96ce81d93272f41719326f5cd4333c88f7ad403cc4404efc0fa62ffb10a88035 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash 0x96ce81d93272f41719326f5cd4333c88f7ad403cc4404efc0fa62ffb10a88035 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash ExtensionNode found in DB +0ms
  trie:find_path:extension_node Comparing node key to expected
  trie:find_path:extension_node || Node_Key: [0]
  trie:find_path:extension_node || Expected: [0]
  trie:find_path:extension_node || Matching: [true]
  trie:find_path:extension_node              +0ms
  trie:find_path:extension_node NextNode: 138,73,186,20,217,38,102,24,19,23,119,204,15,235,225,169,246,72,131,186,184,142,11,21,205,144,236,100,68,104,239,255 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash 0x8a49ba14d9266618131777cc0febe1a9f64883bab88e0b15cd90ec644468efff +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash BranchNode found in DB +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node Looking for node on branch index: [12] +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node:12 NodeHash: 0xf2a8cf9296f999d637c17e03303af4aa4f0e5628d54d0e7ec3b6642015232f25 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash 0xf2a8cf9296f999d637c17e03303af4aa4f0e5628d54d0e7ec3b6642015232f25 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash BranchNode found in DB +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node Looking for node on branch index: [2] +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node:2 NodeHash: 0xcee1ccd3c512df214f62cf72006a64b394f6ffd73cfa55ef35e52711f6ef3b83 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash 0xcee1ccd3c512df214f62cf72006a64b394f6ffd73cfa55ef35e52711f6ef3b83 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:by_hash BranchNode found in DB +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node Looking for node on branch index: [2] +0ms
  trie:find_path:branch_node:2 Raw_Node: 32,44,99,114,101,97,116,101,32,116,104,101,32,108,97,115,116,32,98,114,97,110,99,104 +0ms
  trie:lookup_node:raw_node LeafNode +0ms

verkle:

  verkle:get Suffix: 1; Value: 0x320122e8584be00d000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 +0ms
  verkle:get Stem: 0x318dfa512b6f3237a2d4763cf49bf26de3b617fb0cabe38a97807a5549df4d; Suffix: 2 +0ms
  verkle:find_path Path (31): [0x318dfa512b6f3237a2d4763cf49bf26de3b617fb0cabe38a97807a5549df4d] +0ms
  verkle:find_path Starting with Root Node: [0x120744309fa260e19b58b2f5da88073fc62f883cd9cb9b0103d37d4002199802] +0ms
  verkle:find_path Partial Path 0x318d - found next node in path 0x41d4cf67efa1b8b71c7ae8345666433bf06ad7b9335642fc129122887a259e02. +0ms
  verkle:find_path Partial Path 0x318dfa51 - found next node in path 0x8225a4e1f63a9ed69ba4a486d5ce0d741cbb881054160d3b2f1f86941cab3406. +0ms

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.77%. Comparing base (4470cc3) to head (21916c8).
Report is 77 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Flag	Coverage Δ
block	?
client	?
evm	68.77% <ø> (?)
tx	?
wallet	?

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

[jochem-brouwer]

Some small nits

[jochem-brouwer]

One comment, LGTM

[scorbajio]

I've updated the trie and verkle README's to be more accurate with namespace names, I've also added two missed debug symbols in trie: from_proof and create_proof. Lastly, I've went ahead and moved the branch index out of the namespace name and into the debug string, as discussed in #3689. An example:

  trie:#:lookup_node:by_hash 0x31e00526eadbd6cbfb83ca9000f2109f48d372a6a33dc4f9181ca4b43d146230 +0ms
  trie:#:lookup_node:by_hash BranchNode found in DB +0ms
  trie:#:find_path:branch_node Looking for node on branch index: [12] +0ms
  trie:#:find_path:branch_node Branch index: 12 - NodeHash: 0xd37ac31b9ede7380608d7fffe7a323fcafa87a264d06425ea8fbe7fa206ffdfb +0ms

[acolytec3]

LGTM

[acolytec3]

LGTM

[jochem-brouwer]

Trie tests are failing?

[scorbajio]

Trie tests are failing?

The trie tests are failing because printing node.value() for a trie node returns two possible types, a Uint8Array OR a Uint8Array[], but only the former is visibly being returned since this._value which is typed as a Uint8Array is being returned. I saw that just printing the value of it to the debug string creates this array of numbers that isn't very accessible compared to printing hex, so I switched to using bytesToHex to print it, but when an array of u8s is the return value of value(), it type errors.

I can just go back to printing the plain value, but should we consider retyping _value and the return types of the trie node classes in a followup change to make this stuff easier to see coming?

for reference see node.