feat(contract-distribution): Filter new deploys from accesses and add a new testloop test

[tayfunelmas]

• Exclude the code-hashes from the newly deployed code from the message sent from chunk-producer to chunk-validators. This is because code for the newly deployed contracts are available in the state witness inside the receipts (they are not excluded from the witness), and the witness is already sent to the validators. Then the chunk validators will update their contract cache while applying the deploy actions. Thus, the validators do not need to request code for these.

• Add two testloop tests for contract distribution. A simple test deploys and calls a contract. Another test deploys multiple contracts to two different accounts/shards and calls them from different accounts. We call the contracts before and after clearing the cache. We promote some of the helper functions from the congestion_control test to the utils to share with the new test.

• To support the test, we add a test-only method to the contract cache to revoke the cache. This allows us to test that the chain can still work if the cache is empty. Note that we only add the cleaning functionality for testing, since the reasoning about cleaning the cache while there are ongoing accesses is not trivial (for example see this comment)

• We also change env.rs because the warmup step needs one more block to ensure there is no missing chunk. The changes in the block heights in test_view_requests_to_archival_node is related to this change.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.63248% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.25%. Comparing base (1e41b11) to head (2d01c1c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
runtime/near-vm-runner/src/cache.rs	80.00%	9 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...src/stateless_validation/state_witness_producer.rs	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
...egration-tests/src/test_loop/utils/transactions.rs	95.23%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #12298      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.24%   71.25%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         838      838              
  Lines      169346   169440      +94     
  Branches   169346   169440      +94     
==========================================
+ Hits       120651   120740      +89     
+ Misses      43449    43442       -7     
- Partials     5246     5258      +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility	0.16% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
db-migration	0.16% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
genesis-check	1.23% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration-tests	39.04% <49.57%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
linux	70.71% <78.63%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
linux-nightly	70.84% <78.63%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
macos	50.42% <0.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
pytests	1.54% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
sanity-checks	1.35% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	64.19% <67.60%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
upgradability	0.21% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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.

[tayfunelmas]

Simplified the test and separated it into two different test files: One with a simple deploy and call a sized contract. Another one with multiple contracts and cross-shard calling.