STR 2066 Revise and harden OL STF tests

[krsnapaudel]

Description

Refactor, revise and harden OL STF tests. Add tests to fill existing gaps.

• Module reorganization: splits tests/stf.rs and tests/edge_cases.rs into themed modules (verify_header, verify_body, staging_layers, sau_transfers, sau_messages, sau_limits, sau_sequences, sau_logs, chain_processing, asm_manifests, tx_constraints, partial_execution, stress, sau_validation).
• Behavior fixture layer: introduces OLStfFixture::builder() + OLStfFixtureBuilder for pre-genesis setup, FixtureBlockBuilder for child-block sequencing and tx construction, SAU/GAM/manifest fixture builders, StateSnapshot::assert_unchanged for state-unchanged pinning, and StateTestExt: IStateAccessor for state-lookup ergonomics. Raw verifier/staging/tamper helpers stay as free functions over &mut impl IStateAccessorMut.
• Production fixes:
  • Rejects SAU updates with unconsumed proofs in transaction_processing.
  • Replaces broad ExecError::ChainIntegrity with finer variants: AsmManifestHeightMismatch { expected, actual, index } in manifest_processing and HeaderEpochMismatch / ContextEpochMismatch in chain_processing. Downstream callers updated.
• Existing-test hardening: positive controls on tamper tests, state-unchanged assertions via snapshots on SAU/inbox/ledger-reference validation tests, bridge-gateway silent-drop pinned across 5 drop variants (including limbo-amount checks), body-root mismatch revived, mid-block partial execution semantics pinned, zero-balance boundary asserted including transfer-after-drain, supply-cap tests use BitcoinAmount::MAX_MONEY and BitcoinAmount::MAX with intent comments, limbo bookkeeping asserted in deposit/withdrawal and ASM manifest tests.
• New coverage: chain processing error branches, GAM structural validation, ASM manifest processing boundaries (height gap, height ≤ last L1, max manifest count, malformed deposit log, unknown-serial deposit limboing, checkpoint tip update), log-root padding parity, epoch preseal and post-epoch diff verification, dependent SAU sequences, replay rejection across blocks, TxConstraints slot boundaries, ledger-reference proof rejection paths, multi-SAU same-block scenarios (distinct senders, sequential seqnos, duplicate seqno failure), staging-layer execution paths (WriteTrackingState, IndexerState), SAU and log boundary limits, SAU target-type and sequence-number bounds, block terminality verification, output message delivery to snark inboxes, SAU log emission contract, ignored stress tests for large inbox/tx batches.

This PR was created with help from Claude Code and Codex.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature/Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality or enhances an existing one)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Refactor
• New or updated tests
• Dependency Update

Notes to Reviewers

Please review the doc below and the test added.

Is this PR addressing any specification, design doc or external reference document?

• Yes
• No

If yes, please add relevant links:
OL STF test cases

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have commented my code where necessary.
• I have updated the documentation if needed.
• My changes do not introduce new warnings.
• I have added (where necessary) tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
• New and existing tests pass with my changes.
• I have disclosed my use of AI in the body of this PR.

Related Issues

STR-2066

[krsnapaudel]

@barakshani Added tests with tx staging. See staging_layers.rs.

[github-actions]

Commit: 1ce1f16

SP1 Execution Results

program	cycles	gas
EVM EE Chunk	565,505	771,876
EVM EE Account	421,125	526,509
Checkpoint	2,241,010	2,582,478

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.54120% with 86 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.01%. Comparing base (d1d88bd) to head (4d6250c).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/ol/stf/src/test_utils.rs	89.42%	86 Missing ⚠️

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1760      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.76%   80.01%   +0.25%     
==========================================
  Files         674      674              
  Lines       74805    75685     +880     
==========================================
+ Hits        59665    60559     +894     
+ Misses      15140    15126      -14     

Flag	Coverage Δ
functional	60.25% <58.06%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
unit	66.12% <92.54%> (+0.45%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
bin/prover-perf/src/programs/checkpoint.rs	84.78% <100.00%> (ø)
crates/consensus-logic/src/fcm/service.rs	94.25% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
crates/ledger-types/src/errors.rs	75.00% <ø> (+31.25%)	⬆️
crates/ol/da/src/scheme.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
crates/ol/da/src/types/payload.rs	91.01% <100.00%> (+3.65%)	⬆️
crates/ol/stf/src/chain_processing.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (+25.53%)	⬆️
crates/ol/stf/src/context.rs	90.64% <100.00%> (+0.64%)	⬆️
crates/ol/stf/src/manifest_processing.rs	94.07% <100.00%> (+6.95%)	⬆️
crates/ol/stf/src/proof_verification.rs	98.75% <100.00%> (+3.65%)	⬆️
crates/ol/stf/src/transaction_processing.rs	99.14% <100.00%> (+3.69%)	⬆️
... and 3 more

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[AlpenCodex]

@codex Please review this PR

(This is a test being run by @sampkaALP (security))

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[delbonis]

Merge conflict because of the limbo PR that just went in.

[delbonis]

This is good work, but there's still a lot of repeating patterns with tests. I would love it if we could think of some declaritive model for describing all the different test scenarios which would make it easier to write tests by handling the setup/asserts better, and when we make changes to how things work we don't have to change tons of tests that interact with it. I am not sure what that would look like at the moment.

[krsnapaudel]

This is good work, but there's still a lot of repeating patterns with tests. I would love it if we could think of some declaritive model for describing all the different test scenarios which would make it easier to write tests by handling the setup/asserts better, and when we make changes to how things work we don't have to change tons of tests that interact with it. I am not sure what that would look like at the moment.

@delbonis Yes I am aware. I will try to come up with some ways to reduce repetition with AI help.

[delbonis]

wow I would have assumed this would have caused more conflicts

[delbonis]

There's a lot of good things here to improve ergonomics, however there's also a lot of smelly problems (like "being too specific without reason") and unidiomatic/misleading names that should be improved.

Also in most of the tests we can probably just do use ...::test_utils::*; instead of importing each and every item, since that just creates more work to keep updated (either for humans or LLMs).

[bewakes]

Great work! The tests are much cleaner. Some comments, nothing major blocking.
You might want to also update this doc as necessary.

[prajwolrg]

utACK