fix(concurrency): add assert message to the declared_contracts assertion in validate_reads

[OriStarkware]

…reads

---

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.42%. Comparing base (6e06e79) to head (613320f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1981   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.42%   78.42%           
=======================================
  Files          62       62           
  Lines        8913     8913           
  Branches     8913     8913           
=======================================
  Hits         6990     6990           
  Misses       1476     1476           
  Partials      447      447           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[barak-b-starkware]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @noaov1, @OriStarkware, and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/concurrency/versioned_state.rs line 125 at r2 (raw file):

                is_declared,
                self.compiled_contract_classes.read(tx_index + 1, class_hash).is_some(),
                "The declared_contracts mapping should match the compiled_contract_classes mapping"

(Point at the end)

Suggestion:

"The declared_contracts mapping should match the compiled_contract_classes mapping."

---

crates/blockifier/src/concurrency/versioned_state_test.rs line 340 at r2 (raw file):

    let version_state_proxy = safe_versioned_state.pin_version(0);
    version_state_proxy.state().declared_contracts.write(0, class_hash!(1_u8), true);
    assert!(!safe_versioned_state.pin_version(1).validate_reads(&state_maps_to_validate));

Add another flow in which the assertion fails in the opposite way (.is_some() == true and is_declared == false)

Code quote:

    let state_maps_to_validate = StateMaps {
        declared_contracts: HashMap::from([(class_hash!(1_u8), false)]),
        ..Default::default()
    };
    let version_state_proxy = safe_versioned_state.pin_version(0);
    version_state_proxy.state().declared_contracts.write(0, class_hash!(1_u8), true);
    assert!(!safe_versioned_state.pin_version(1).validate_reads(&state_maps_to_validate));

[noaov1]

Can you please explain the motivation for this test?

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @OriStarkware and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/concurrency/versioned_state.rs line 125 at r2 (raw file):

                is_declared,
                self.compiled_contract_classes.read(tx_index + 1, class_hash).is_some(),
                "The declared_contracts mapping should match the compiled_contract_classes mapping"

So it won't contaminate the search

Suggestion:

                "The declared contracts mapping should match the compiled contract classes mapping"

[OriStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @barak-b-starkware, @noaov1, and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/concurrency/versioned_state.rs line 125 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, barak-b-starkware wrote…

(Point at the end)

Done.

[OriStarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @barak-b-starkware, @noaov1, and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/concurrency/versioned_state_test.rs line 340 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, barak-b-starkware wrote…

Add another flow in which the assertion fails in the opposite way (.is_some() == true and is_declared == false)

After discussion, we decided that this is an unnecessary test and we should not add it.

[OriStarkware]

I am adding a new assert message. The PR initially added a test for the assert, but after discussion we decided that it is an unnecessary test, so I deleted it.

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @barak-b-starkware, @noaov1, and @Yoni-Starkware)

[noaov1]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @barak-b-starkware and @Yoni-Starkware)

[barak-b-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Yoni-Starkware)