mycelo genesis gingerbread activation fix

[palango]

Description

Fixes gingerbread activation in mycelo.

This results in this genesis config, instead of gingerbreadBlock not being set:

[...]
   "churritoBlock": 0,
   "donutBlock": 0,
   "espressoBlock": 0,
   "gingerbreadBlock": 1,
[...]

[github-actions]

Test failures:
TestTransactionPoolUnderpricing: core timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="Registering method handler" method=getAddressFor timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="Registering method handler" method=blockGasLimit timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="Registering method handler" method=getUptimeLookbackWindow timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="Registering method handler" method=intrinsicGasForAlternativeFeeCurrency timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="EVM call successful" to=0x000000000000000000000000000000000000ce10 method=getAddressFor input=0xdd9272338b91d837e1684f7353d73b6197230894243cf869282f722841df96b441303f37 output=0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:33+0000 severity=debug msg="EVM call successful" to=0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 method=blockGasLimit input=0x7877a797 output=0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001312d00 tx_pool_test.go:1929: failed to add well priced transaction: txpool is full timestamp=2023-08-22T00:36:34+0000 severity=info msg="Transaction pool stopped"
This test report was produced by the test-summary action.  Made with ❤️ in Cambridge.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.14% 🎉

Comparison is base (df29f4c) 55.08% compared to head (4b8818f) 55.23%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2169      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.08%   55.23%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files         678      678              
  Lines      114321   114321              
==========================================
+ Hits        62978    63141     +163     
+ Misses      47448    47316     -132     
+ Partials     3895     3864      -31     

see 34 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[github-actions]

Coverage from tests in ./e2e_test/... for ./consensus/istanbul/... at commit 06290db

coverage: 46.8% of statements across all listed packages

coverage:  57.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul
coverage:  23.7% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce
coverage:  54.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest
coverage:  24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica
coverage:  64.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core
coverage:  45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db
coverage:   0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy
coverage:  64.4% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime
coverage:  51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator
coverage:  79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random

[gastonponti]

We have 2 things there

1. the zero as disabled in the core contract
2. the way we have to set the base fee for the specific block of the hardfork

For 1), I didn't wanted to change the logic of what the other team was auditing nor add some hacky ways as infinite o something similar just because of a contract limitation

For 2), the way to calculate the block N depends on the block N-1, and the activation block, is the one that instead of using the block N-1, consumes the state at the beginning of the block
So, if we activate the block in the genesis, it means that the block 1 will rely on searching the baseFee on the genesis, and, I didn't wanted to avoid adding the baseFee in the genesis block
If starts with 1, it's going to search for the state already set in the genesis, and will work as it should

I thought that it was not going to generate any issue, mostly because the chain construction starts at block 1, so technically, any block is constructed as gingerbread, but maybe I should have explained it better

[gastonponti]

Unit tests are passing but are flaky in github actions