style: avoid repetion in Transaction variant names

[tdelabro]

fixes: starkware-libs/blockifier#1706

This change is 

[meship-starkware]

Reviewed 6 of 6 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @tdelabro)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transaction_execution.rs line 66 at r1 (raw file):

                    false => DeclareTransaction::new(declare, tx_hash, non_optional_class_info),
                };
                Ok(Self::AccountTransaction(AccountTransaction::Declare(declare_tx?)))

I think that Self::Account might be a bit confusing here. Account and AccountTransaction are different things. I fear that a reader unfamiliar with the code might think we are creating an account that will run the transaction.

Code quote:

(Self::AccountTransaction(AccountTransaction::Declare(declare_tx?))

[tdelabro]

Due to the way Enum syntax works there won't be any occurrence of Account just by itself, it will always be Account::Transaction which is self-explanatory and doesn't remove information in comparison to Account::AccountTransaction.

When using Self::Transaction you are always in a context where you are fully aware of what Self is.

So I don't think it is misleading at all. Especially because it is coherent with the rest of the naming convention used

[meship-starkware]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @tdelabro)

[github-actions]

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale.
This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions!