test: persistence uses TokenContract

[alexghr]

This PR extends the end to end test suite added in #3911 to validate that the system recovers correctly if the chain advances while its offline. It also changes the test contract from EasyPrivateToken to TokenContract in order to mix in public state as well as private state.

[AztecBot]

Benchmark results

Metrics with a significant change:

• note_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms (32): 121 (+219%)

Detailed results

All benchmarks are run on txs on the Benchmarking contract on the repository. Each tx consists of a batch call to create_note and increment_balance, which guarantees that each tx has a private call, a nested private call, a public call, and a nested public call, as well as an emitted private note, an unencrypted log, and public storage read and write.

This benchmark source data is available in JSON format on S3 here.

Values are compared against data from master at commit 3ba03695 and shown if the difference exceeds 1%.

L2 block published to L1

Each column represents the number of txs on an L2 block published to L1.

Metric	8 txs	32 txs	128 txs
l1_rollup_calldata_size_in_bytes	45,444	179,588	716,132
l1_rollup_calldata_gas	220,968	866,276	3,447,800
l1_rollup_execution_gas	934,112	3,968,750	24,791,336
l2_block_processing_time_in_ms	1,335	5,129 (-4%)	21,718 (+2%)
note_successful_decrypting_time_in_ms	333 (-3%)	995 (-2%)	3,678 (-2%)
note_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms	49.8 (-6%)	⚠️ 121 (+219%)	143 (+1%)
l2_block_building_time_in_ms	15,070	59,877	240,207
l2_block_rollup_simulation_time_in_ms	10,685	42,562	171,169
l2_block_public_tx_process_time_in_ms	4,356 (+1%)	17,223	68,699 (+1%)

L2 chain processing

Each column represents the number of blocks on the L2 chain where each block has 16 txs.

Metric	5 blocks	10 blocks
node_history_sync_time_in_ms	15,480	29,132
note_history_successful_decrypting_time_in_ms	2,692 (+13%)	4,649
note_history_trial_decrypting_time_in_ms	83.2 (-1%)	158 (+1%)
node_database_size_in_bytes	3,616,604	3,716,314
pxe_database_size_in_bytes	29,923	59,478

Circuits stats

Stats on running time and I/O sizes collected for every circuit run across all benchmarks.

Circuit	circuit_simulation_time_in_ms	circuit_input_size_in_bytes	circuit_output_size_in_bytes
private-kernel-init	211	44,709	25,561
private-kernel-ordering	139	30,953	14,809
base-rollup	1,082	128,338	881
root-rollup	82.6	4,088	709
private-kernel-inner	289	71,236	25,561
public-kernel-private-input	203	31,891	25,561
public-kernel-non-first-iteration	201	31,933	25,561
merge-rollup	9.83 (+1%)	2,608	881

Tree insertion stats

The duration to insert a fixed batch of leaves into each tree type.

Metric	1 leaves	2 leaves	8 leaves	16 leaves	32 leaves	64 leaves	128 leaves	512 leaves	1024 leaves	2048 leaves	8192 leaves
batch_insert_into_append_only_tree_ms	11.1	88.0 (-2%)	14.9 (+10%)	18.0 (-1%)	23.7 (-2%)	49.8	88.4 (-3%)	241 (-2%)	468	918 (-2%)	3,656 (+2%)
batch_insert_into_indexed_tree_ms	N/A	N/A	N/A	65.4	N/A	59.7	110 (-11%)	361	732	1,408 (-1%)	5,738 (+3%)

Miscellaneous

Transaction sizes based on how many contracts are deployed in the tx.

Metric	0 deployed contracts	1 deployed contracts
tx_size_in_bytes	15,487	31,905

Transaction processing duration by data writes.

Metric	0 new commitments	1 new commitments
tx_pxe_processing_time_ms	344	969

Metric	1 public data writes
tx_sequencer_processing_time_ms	533

[alexghr]

Not sure if this is the best place to put it but what this is trying to solve is: adding an existing account, that's been deployed through PXE A, to a new PXE, B and calling contracts using this new PXE instance, B.

I'm not a fan of the random portalContract: EthAddress.ZERO in here 😟

LMK if there's a better test utility to register an existing account with a new PXE

[spalladino]

Makes sense! I doubt account contracts will have a corresponding portal, so I think this is ok.

[spalladino]

Looks great!

[spalladino]

Makes sense! I doubt account contracts will have a corresponding portal, so I think this is ok.

[spalladino]

It most definitely is, but we don't have a better way around it yet. Maybe we could extract it to a shared function, but that's about it.

[alexghr]

I think it would be cool if we extracted storage slots from the Noir code and made them available on the Contract interface. Something like this would be really nice to use

async function addPendingShieldNoteToPXE(
  wallet: AccountWallet,
  asset: TokenContract,
  amount: bigint,
  secretHash: Fr,
  txHash: TxHash,
) {
  const note = new Note([new Fr(amount), secretHash]);
  const extendedNote = new ExtendedNote(note, wallet.getAddress(), contract.address, contract.storageSlots.pendingShields, txHash);
  await wallet.addNote(extendedNote);
}

[spalladino]

Related to #2806. Having a mapping of a contract storage available has popped up multiple times.

[spalladino]

Note that you don't need to explicitly call simulate, just doing send will take care of it.