EVM runCode/runCall type cleanup

[jochem-brouwer]

Closes #2860

This PR unifies the types for the EVMRunCodeOpts and EVMRunCallOpts.

Discussion item: in order to not create a base class I had to unify the pc option from runCodeOpts. I cannot think of a practical reason why someone would want to runCode (which they supply) but they do not want to start at the starting point of the code. I suggest we remove it.

Also side-note: this whole runCode and runCall should at some point be merged. We can refactor EVM in such way that we allow the external method call to runCall (or maybe we should rename this, runEVM or something) to provide the complete system state. In these, almost all options are optional, but they provide access to the internal run state. This would extend to providing things like current stack, the current pc, etc. (This is an idea I had a long time ago, and seeing the current state of EVM it is not clean and we should clean it up, it is kind of messy)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2861 (35d094d) into master (4c6b4bf) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 35d094d differs from pull request most recent head 563309a. Consider uploading reports for the commit 563309a to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

Flag	Coverage Δ
vm	77.37% <ø> (ø)

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

[gabrocheleau]

lgtm

[holgerd77]

For the pc option I think there was a use case when this was introduced (can vaguely remember that someone explicitly requested).

So for these kind of options we should really be careful and/or really dig this out again. Normally no one is just introducing options "for fun" and had some argument why to do. 😜

[holgerd77]

On this EVM refactor thing: maybe you want to do another quick round of reflection and estimate here. Is this at the end a rather somewhat small thing to do, in terms of the amount of work? Or is this more extensive? I personally completely can't judge.

So if this is rather small, we might even want to consider to just take this in now (but absolutely not the outcome I am pushing here for, totally in the open, just wanted to at least mention the possibility).

[jochem-brouwer]

For the pc option I think there was a use case when this was introduced (can vaguely remember that someone explicitly requested).

So for these kind of options we should really be careful and/or really dig this out again. Normally no one is just introducing options "for fun" and had some argument why to do. stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye

Alright, I will block this PR and re-introduce the pc option.

Regarding the EVM refactor: this will not be a small task. Nevertheless, I will prioritize this.

[holgerd77]

Regarding the EVM refactor: this will not be a small task. Nevertheless, I will prioritize this.

Ah, no, please no big refactorings any more.

[jochem-brouwer]

@holgerd77 It's an internal refactor, see discord 😄

[jochem-brouwer]

(and the side-note of this PR 😄 )

[holgerd77]

LGTM