fix: Inconsistent handling of failed EVM transactions

[victor-yanev]

Description:

This PR fixes the issue discussed in the comments of #3115

Related issue(s):

Fixes #3115

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

• Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
• Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

[github-actions]

Test Results

 20 files  ± 0  273 suites  +1   37m 12s ⏱️ + 3m 39s
605 tests + 4  594 ✅ + 3  4 💤 ±0  7 ❌ +1 
684 runs   - 57  673 ✅  - 56  4 💤  - 2  7 ❌ +1 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit ad8d69d. ± Comparison against base commit 6442c98.

This pull request removes 2 and adds 6 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

"before all" hook for "should associate to a token" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @tokencreate HTS Precompile Token Create Acceptance Tests "before all" hook for "should associate to a token"
"before all" hook in "Debug API Test Suite" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-3 RPC Server Acceptance Tests Debug API Test Suite "before all" hook in "Debug API Test Suite"

"before all" hook in "@api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests "before all" hook in "@api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests"
Should eventually exhaust the hbar limit for EXTENDED user ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @hbarlimiter HBAR Limiter Acceptance Tests HBAR Rate Limit Tests HBAR Rate Limit For Different Spending Plan Tiers Preconfigured Tiers EXTENDED Tier Should eventually exhaust the hbar limit for EXTENDED user
Should eventually exhaust the hbar limit for PRIVILEGED user ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @hbarlimiter HBAR Limiter Acceptance Tests HBAR Rate Limit Tests HBAR Rate Limit For Different Spending Plan Tiers Preconfigured Tiers PRIVILEGED Tier Should eventually exhaust the hbar limit for PRIVILEGED user
Should increase the amount spent of the spending plan by the transaction cost ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @hbarlimiter HBAR Limiter Acceptance Tests HBAR Rate Limit Tests HBAR Rate Limit For Different Spending Plan Tiers Preconfigured Tiers EXTENDED Tier Should increase the amount spent of the spending plan by the transaction cost
Should increase the amount spent of the spending plan by the transaction cost ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @hbarlimiter HBAR Limiter Acceptance Tests HBAR Rate Limit Tests HBAR Rate Limit For Different Spending Plan Tiers Preconfigured Tiers PRIVILEGED Tier Should increase the amount spent of the spending plan by the transaction cost
Should successfully populate all pre-configured spending plans ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @hbarlimiter HBAR Limiter Acceptance Tests HBAR Rate Limit Tests HBAR Rate Limit For Different Spending Plan Tiers Preconfigured Tiers given a valid JSON file with pre-configured spending plans Should successfully populate all pre-configured spending plans

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[ebadiere]

LG.

[natanasow]

LGTM, but we should consider adding an exception for this check as well https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/blob/develop/hedera-node/hedera-smart-contract-service-impl/src/main/java/com/hedera/node/app/service/contract/impl/exec/TransactionProcessor.java#L233 in a follow-up PR.

[victor-yanev]

LGTM, but we should consider adding an exception for this check as well https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/blob/develop/hedera-node/hedera-smart-contract-service-impl/src/main/java/com/hedera/node/app/service/contract/impl/exec/TransactionProcessor.java#L233 in a follow-up PR.

@natanasow Could you open a new issue for that, we could prioritize it in the next sprint. 😄

[natanasow]

LGTM, but we should consider adding an exception for this check as well https://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-services/blob/develop/hedera-node/hedera-smart-contract-service-impl/src/main/java/com/hedera/node/app/service/contract/impl/exec/TransactionProcessor.java#L233 in a follow-up PR.

@natanasow Could you open a new issue for that, we could prioritize it in the next sprint. 😄

Okay.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[github-actions]

🚨 Memory Leak Detected 🚨

A potential memory leak has been detected in the test titled validates enforcement of request id. This may impact the application's performance and stability.

Details

📊 Memory Leak Detection Report 📊

GC Type: MarkSweepCompact
Cost: 28,397.9 ms

Heap Statistics (before vs after executing the test):

• Total Heap Size: increased with 1.46 MB
• Total Heap Size Executable: no changes
• Total Physical Size: decreased with 348.16 KB
• Total Available Size: increased with 2.84 MB
• Total Global Handles Size: no changes
• Used Global Handles Size: decreased with 64.00 bytes
• Used Heap Size: decreased with 3.58 MB
• Heap Size Limit: no changes
• Malloced Memory: no changes
• External Memory: no changes
• Peak Malloced Memory: no changes

Heap Space Statistics (before vs after executing the test):

• Old Space:

  • Space Size: increased with 1.84 MB
  • Space Used Size: increased with 1.93 MB
  • Space Available Size: increased with 99.46 KB
  • Physical Space Size: increased with 1.84 MB

• Large Object Space:

  • Space Size: increased with 835.58 KB
  • Space Used Size: increased with 813.50 KB
  • Space Available Size: no changes
  • Physical Space Size: increased with 835.58 KB

Recommendations

Please investigate the memory allocations in this test, focusing on objects that are not being properly deallocated.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.28%. Comparing base (6442c98) to head (ad8d69d).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/relay/src/lib/eth.ts	87.50%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3158      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.19%   83.28%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          66       66              
  Lines        4254     4260       +6     
  Branches      829      832       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         3539     3548       +9     
+ Misses        472      471       -1     
+ Partials      243      241       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
config-service	98.14% <ø> (ø)
relay	85.47% <87.50%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
server	83.52% <ø> (ø)
ws-server	36.87% <ø> (ø)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/relay/src/lib/eth.ts	82.33% <87.50%> (+0.36%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes