feat(benchmarks): add BAL contract chase

[jochem-brouwer]

🗒️ Description

This test re-introduces the contract chase benchmark in #2033 which looks wrong there. The current status is that this appears to consume about 47% of the gas it has available. Since we want to bench using most of the available gas this is something to look into to find out if we can spend this on something else in this benchmark.

Note: builds on #2033, merge that prior to merging this.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

• All: Ran fast tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:

  uvx tox -e static

• All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
• All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.
• Tests: For PRs implementing a missed test case, update the post-mortem document to add an entry the list.
• Ported Tests: All converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests or tests/static have been assigned @ported_from marker.

Cute Animal Picture

[jochem-brouwer]

CCing this comment from @fselmo here:

I think this is 63/64 rule compounding with each nested call. We probably need to figure out the actual gas limit used since it doesn't use the per-tx-gas-cap. Then, we can squeeze more transactions in the block.

I tested this on a gas limit of 1M and this executed ~470k gas, so this might be part of the problem (txs not using full cap)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.35%. Comparing base (9b90b4c) to head (d395cfe).

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2588   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            86.35%   86.35%           
================================================
  Files                  599      599           
  Lines                36904    36904           
  Branches              3771     3771           
================================================
  Hits                 31868    31868           
  Misses                4485     4485           
  Partials               551      551           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.35% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.