write CompactContractBytecode instead of CompactContract

[brockelmore]

Motivation

The existing CompactContract doesn't have enough information for our needs in foundry. So we write out CompactContractBytecode instead which is a slightly stripped down version of ContractBytecode. The reason to strip it down is because we lose a decent amount of performance if we write all the other things in ContractBytecode. This is a compromise between speed and the needed information.

Solution

Write CompactContractBytecode instead of CompactContract

PR Checklist

• Added Tests
• Added Documentation
• Updated the changelog

[mattsse]

necessary workaround until we find a more flexible solution.

still fails to compile due to changed types.

the Contracts.. representation is a bit of a mess...

[brockelmore]

still fails to compile due to changed types.

wdym? compiles fine for me?

also ye we need to most likely abstract thing into traits imo

[mattsse]

looks like a doc-test https://github.com/gakonst/ethers-rs/runs/4952579664?check_suite_focus=true#step:9:539

[brockelmore]

oh ye the tests fail, but it compiles okay

[gakonst]

LGTM modulo doc test fixing

[gakonst]

LGTM - we should do a pass at the whole crate to see if we got duplicate functionality / if we can clean things up