Test Validator: Set deployment slot to 0 for cloned upgradeable programs

[buffalojoec]

Problem

When an upgradeable program is cloned from another cluster into the test
validator's genesis config, its existing deployment slot is never modified. This
causes the program cache to fail when attempting to load this program.

On version 1.18, this is an error handled gracefully by the runtime:

Transaction simulation failed: This program may not be used for executing instructions

The change at solana-labs#34407 seems to have been where the bug was introduced to 1.18. The error is caused by the snippets I mentioned here: #436 (comment)

However, on the current tip, this is actually a panic.

[ ERROR solana_program_runtime::loaded_programs ] ProgramCache::assign_program() failed key=DwnyLgHGL7QLcHEJgLMRAhSBAXwzh3ueviPa3SQgyvBQ existing=[LoadedProgram { program: LoadedProgramType::LegacyV1, account_size: 19233, deployment_slot: 288251488, effective_slot: 288251489, tx_usage_counter: 1, ix_usage_counter: 0, latest_access_slot: 379 }] entry=LoadedProgram { program: LoadedProgramType::LegacyV1, account_size: 19233, deployment_slot: 288251488, effective_slot: 288251489, tx_usage_counter: 1, ix_usage_counter: 0, latest_access_slot: 379 }

thread 'solRpcEl' panicked at /Users/joesol/anza/solana-joe/program-runtime/src/loaded_programs.rs:791:25:
Unexpected replacement of an entry

agave/program-runtime/src/loaded_programs.rs

Lines 789 to 791 in b1e1799

	// Something is wrong, I can feel it ...
	error!("ProgramCache::assign_program() failed key={:?} existing={:?} entry={:?}", key, slot_versions, entry);
	debug_assert!(false, "Unexpected replacement of an entry");

Summary of Changes

As we currently do with the SPL programs, when adding the programdata account
for a cloned upgradeable program, set the deployment slot to 0.

Closes #436

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.8%. Comparing base (b1e1799) to head (77f34cb).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #501     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    81.8%    81.8%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         842      842             
  Lines      228462   228462             
=========================================
- Hits       187084   187043     -41     
- Misses      41378    41419     +41     

[joncinque]

Is there any intention to backport this? Since it's only impacting dev tools and fixing a bug, I think it would be best to backport.

[mergify]

Backports to the beta branch are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for fixing bugs, security issues, and perf regressions. Changes intended for backport should be structured such that a minimum effective diff can be committed separately from any refactoring, plumbing, cleanup, etc that are not strictly necessary to achieve the goal. Any of the latter should go only into master and ride the normal stabilization schedule. Exceptions include CI/metrics changes, CLI improvements and documentation updates on a case by case basis.