chore(ci): Investigate possible flaky test

[kevaundray]

🗒️ Description

See comment here: #2307 (comment)

Expectedly, I haven't been able to reproduce this locally, but looking at the code, the only thing that is the same between cancun and prage is the blob filename, since it is blob_0_cell_proofs_0.json.

If there is a race condition, then they would both use the same file. However, the file has the fork name in it, so if the Cancun run reads the Prague file because it was not deleted for some reason, then we get the error seen in the CI, since the file contents include the fork name.

🔗 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.85%. Comparing base (9460f93) to head (7f651e9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2309   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            85.85%   85.85%           
================================================
  Files                  599      599           
  Lines                39428    39428           
  Branches              3776     3776           
================================================
  Hits                 33851    33851           
  Misses                4946     4946           
  Partials               631      631           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	85.85% <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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[felix314159]

I wrote the code involved here and originally wanted to add the fork name to the blob filename, but there was pushback. The lack of fork in the filename is also the direct reason for the weird unit tests where we use counters to ensure a specific test order that we need cuz otherwise another unit test might replace the fork within a blob files which would be undetected cuz the filename is still the same but which does occassionally lead to unit test failures. I am all for adding the fork name to the blob file name, even if it means being able to cache less. @marioevz wdyt

[kevaundray]

No strong opinion from my side :)