Add property tests for PoX-4 read-only functions

[BowTiedRadone]

Description

This PR adds property tests for PoX-4 read-only functions.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.25%. Comparing base (067633d) to head (ad0e265).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4470      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.22%   83.25%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         452      452              
  Lines      326058   326058              
  Branches      323      323              
==========================================
+ Hits       271357   271445      +88     
+ Misses      54693    54605      -88     
  Partials        8        8              

see 26 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 067633d...ad0e265. Read the comment docs.

[setzeus]

Great job on these tests! They seem p straight-forward read-only checks since there's no way to mock stacking here.

I only have one blocking comment atm.

[moodmosaic]

Great work. Left a couple of comments, mostly on the way some generators are configured.

[BowTiedRadone]

@hugocaillard
Regarding checks, one of the test fails, even if it works locally. What to do in this situation?
https://github.com/stacks-network/stacks-core/actions/runs/8202455709/job/22433699088?pr=4470

It is this test that first allows the contract caller and then checks that the result is some. Maybe the simnet does not work as expected when run there.

[moodmosaic]

LGTM 🙌

[moodmosaic]

@setzeus can you do another round of review as well?

[setzeus]

Overall this looks great! Just getting one test failing locally seen below, once that's updated/fixed this should be good to go.

[moodmosaic]

LGTM

[moodmosaic]

Overall this looks great! Just getting one test failing locally seen below, once that's updated/fixed this should be good to go.

@setzeus failing test has been fixed.

[setzeus]

Can confirm no more errors, appreciate the hard work here @BowTiedRadone - LGTM!

[hugocaillard]

Looking at this now. I assume this comment #4470 (comment) is no longer relevant right?

[moodmosaic]

Looking at this now. I assume this comment #4470 (comment) is no longer relevant right?

It could be an issue with the test assertion, and not an actual bug. I would say don't spend time on it (unless you actually see/spot a potential bug looking at the stack trace).

[hugocaillard]

In this job, the error comes from .toSorted() is not a function. That's because a certain version of the sdk used toSorted that is only available in Node >= 20. It has been fixed, you need to use the latest version of @hirosystems/clarinet-sdk and @stacks/transactions to avoid that