evm: Add tests related to contracts size

[cuongquangnam]

Summary

• Test deployment of various contract sizes

Implications

• Storage

  • Database reindex required
  • Database reindex optional
  • Database reindex not required
  • None

• Consensus

  • Network upgrade required
  • Includes backward compatible changes
  • Includes consensus workarounds
  • Includes consensus refactors
  • None

[canonbrother]

GREAT for this changes!! 1463572

[canonbrother]

can we add a time measurement in each test?? (more info req)

[cuongquangnam]

can we add a time measurement in each test?? (more info req)

Why do we need time measurements? @canonbrother

[canonbrother]

can we add a time measurement in each test?? (more info req)

Why do we need time measurements? @canonbrother

@cuongquangnam
for benchmarking purpose.. just a reference for us to know deployment time against the bytecode size

easier as

start_time = time.time()
// code snippet...
end_time = time.time()
elapsed_time = end_time - start_time
print("Elapsed time: {} s".format(elapsed_time))

[shohamc1]

Don't think we need this as part of the test? We can add it ad-hoc when needed.

[prasannavl]

f4aff43

On this, I'd actually prefer the localized var node than repeated self. It's a good practise to pull all vars in the beginning of the function into the localized context and use those.

However @shohamc1 how about extrapolating on your idea and setting self.node directly into the test framework that aliases nodes[0] or is None?

[shohamc1]

f4aff43

On this, I'd actually prefer the localized var node than repeated self. It's a good practise to pull all vars in the beginning of the function into the localized context and use those.

However @shohamc1 how about extrapolating on your idea and setting self.node directly into the test framework that aliases nodes[0] or is None?

Maybe we can do this on a different PR instead? This one is quite large as it is right now.

[prasannavl]

Sure, sounds good to me