fix(eof): eofwrap.py to ignore invalid blocks

[pdobacz]

🗒️ Description

There is no support for invalid FixtureTransactions to be read from JSON, so we cannot include invalid blocks easily. However as this is not central to the behavior eofwrap tests are intended to test, we can just skip these invalid blocks with the same end effect on the test.

Unfortunately, the fix isn't limited to that. It seems like the fix to requests serialization/hashing (#990) missed a detail when the requests_lists is used to construct requests (like from t8n output). Please double check carefully if this fix is fine.

Note also that for devnet-5 this would be partially hidden by the fact, that we don't include empty requests in the commitment anymore, meaning that all empty requests will not trigger the problem

EDIT: request handling remains unchanged, see thread below

🔗 Related Issues

NA

✅ Checklist

• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes.
• All: Considered squashing commits to improve commit history.
• All: Added an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
• All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• Tests: All converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests have been added to converted-ethereum-tests.txt.
• Tests: A PR with removal of converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests have been opened.
• Tests: Included the type and version of evm t8n tool used to locally execute test cases: e.g., ref with commit hash or geth 1.13.1-stable-3f40e65.
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.

[pdobacz]

It seems the request hash problem affects filling state_tests with evmone too, presumably with other t8n's too?

[chfast]

This fixes filling of EOF tests for me.

[marioevz]

One comment that is a breaking issue, there must be some other approach to this.

[marioevz]

Thanks! We can revisit the requests issue in a follow up PR if that still is necessary, I think it should be solved at a different level to be honest, but we can discuss about it further.

[pdobacz]

Thanks! We can revisit the requests issue in a follow up PR if that still is necessary, I think it should be solved at a different level to be honest, but we can discuss about it further.

yes, in case you've missed my comment, the solution was to have evmone-t8n adhere to exeuction-apis specs, which was just not the obvious first choice to look for specs for me, hence my confusion.

So no need to follow up PR, and thank you.