dev: Add builder pattern for the machine object in tests

[edisontim]

Pull Request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Build-related changes
• Documentation content changes
• Other (please describe):

What is the current behavior?

Resolves: #546

What is the new behavior?

Add builder pattern for Machine object in tests

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

[Eikix]

Hi Tim! Thanks for your first PR,
I'd personally rather see an API closer to:

let machine = MachineBuilder::new().with_bytecode(bytecode).with_calldata(calldata).with_caller(caller).with_read_only().build();

Or something similar

that way, we can reduce overall LoC and have more nimble tests.

Moreover, if a test only needs a to set the bytecode, but all the rest can be our pre-defined presets, we can do:

let machine = MachineBuilder::new().with_preset().with_bytecode(bytecode).build();

Lmk if you think that's ok @enitrat @edisontim

[enitrat]

agreed - the way it has been implemented just abstracts it but doesn't make it simpler!

[edisontim]

Ok I'll remove the Director object from there then :)

[edisontim]

Makes sense to me to also get rid of setup_execution_context_with_bytecode and all the others, and for test_execution_context_read_code and other tests like that to create a machine to run the tests. What do you think?

[Eikix]

Makes sense to me to also get rid of setup_execution_context_with_bytecode and all the others, and for test_execution_context_read_code and other tests like that to create a machine to run the tests. What do you think?

I think you're right

[edisontim]

@enitrat @enitrat Is this what you had in mind?

[enitrat]

yep looks good now!

[enitrat]

all good, please rebase!

[edisontim]

Done :) !

[enitrat]

@Eikix LGTM