Support EIP-7691: Blob throughput increase

[pdobacz]

Implements EIP-7691. It seems only 7702 is missing (once spec stabilizes) from passing EEST devnet-5/6 tests

The parametrization of blob gas schedule with rev led to quite a bit of fallout...

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.29%. Comparing base (9d28979) to head (85a56fb).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1118   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.29%   94.29%           
=======================================
  Files         159      159           
  Lines       17325    17343   +18     
=======================================
+ Hits        16337    16354   +17     
- Misses        988      989    +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
eof_execution_spec_tests	15.91% <14.63%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
ethereum_tests	26.89% <29.26%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ethereum_tests_silkpre	18.96% <16.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
execution_spec_tests	21.53% <29.26%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
unittests	89.05% <93.90%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
test/blockchaintest/blockchaintest_loader.cpp	98.91% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
test/blockchaintest/blockchaintest_runner.cpp	80.62% <100.00%> (ø)
test/state/block.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/state/block.hpp	66.66% <ø> (-33.34%)	⬇️
test/statetest/statetest.hpp	87.50% <ø> (-0.74%)	⬇️
test/statetest/statetest_loader.cpp	98.18% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
test/statetest/statetest_runner.cpp	97.14% <100.00%> (ø)
test/t8n/t8n.cpp	87.64% <100.00%> (ø)
test/unittests/state_block_test.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/unittests/state_transition.cpp	98.49% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 4 more

[chfast]

Do you want to split out the BlockInfo change?

[chfast]

Do EEST have multiple entries here?

[pdobacz]

Hm, no, it seems "Cancun" and "Prague" keys would get split into two tests. Do you think this warrants removing the tests: Support varying BlockInfo in statetests? And just using the first entry and asserting there is only one?

[chfast]

No, I think the change is fine. We rather should push for the test format update long term.

[chfast]

There is also one change I have in mind: we should split BlockInfo into multiple structs: data from tests, computed values, data needed for EVM execution.

[pdobacz]

No, I think the change is fine. We rather should push for the test format update long term.

Meanwhile, I've tried it. It is only marginally smaller, not worth it

There is also one change I have in mind: we should split BlockInfo into multiple structs: data from tests, computed values, data needed for EVM execution.

I presume not in this PR?

Do you want to split out the BlockInfo change?

I was not planning to squash it, so it remains as a separate commit, ok?