fix: fixed eth_getCode to now use blockNumber when address is an HTS token

[simzzz]

Description:
If we pass an HTS token address to getCode, we do not take into account the block number, resulting in a bug where it would return the smart contract code even if the block number provided is earlier than the one where the token was created.

Related issue(s):

Fixes #3155

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

• Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
• Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

[github-actions]

Test Results

 22 files  ± 0  278 suites  +7   44m 6s ⏱️ - 21m 37s
621 tests +12  607 ✅ +15  4 💤 +1  10 ❌  - 4 
847 runs  + 1  829 ✅ + 5  6 💤 +2  12 ❌  - 6 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 7a9e00b. ± Comparison against base commit 373f1dc.

This pull request removes 3 and adds 15 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

"after all" hook in "RPC Server Acceptance Tests" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests "after all" hook in "RPC Server Acceptance Tests"
"before all" hook for "should execute "eth_getCode" for hts token" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode "before all" hook for "should execute "eth_getCode" for hts token"
"before each" hook for "from/to Addresses when transferring HTS tokens to the tokenAddress are in evm and long-zero format" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests "before each" hook for "from/to Addresses when transferring HTS tokens to the tokenAddress are in evm and long-zero format"

"before all" hook in "Debug API Test Suite" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-3 RPC Server Acceptance Tests Debug API Test Suite "before all" hook in "Debug API Test Suite"
"before each" hook for "should throw error for invalid block number" ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests "before each" hook for "should throw error for invalid block number"
@release should execute "eth_getCode" for contract evm_address ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode @release should execute "eth_getCode" for contract evm_address
@release should execute "eth_getCode" for contract with id converted to evm_address ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode @release should execute "eth_getCode" for contract with id converted to evm_address
should execute "eth_getBlockByNumber", hydrated transactions = true for a block that contains a call with CONTRACT_NEGATIVE_VALUE status ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-1 RPC Server Acceptance Tests RPC Server Acceptance Tests Block related RPC calls should execute "eth_getBlockByNumber", hydrated transactions = true for a block that contains a call with CONTRACT_NEGATIVE_VALUE status
should execute "eth_getCode" for hts token ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode should execute "eth_getCode" for hts token
should not return contract bytecode after sefldestruct ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode should not return contract bytecode after sefldestruct
should return 0x0 for account alias on eth_getCode ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode should return 0x0 for account alias on eth_getCode
should return 0x0 for account evm_address on eth_getCode ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode should return 0x0 for account evm_address on eth_getCode
should return 0x0 for non-existing contract on eth_getCode ‑ RPC Server Acceptance Tests Acceptance tests @api-batch-2 RPC Server Acceptance Tests eth_getCode should return 0x0 for non-existing contract on eth_getCode
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[quiet-node]

@acuarica please kindly take a look when you have a chance to see if it meet yoru original requirements. Thanks much!

[acuarica]

This assumes address is a long zero address, right?

[simzzz]

Correct

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.45%. Comparing base (fe6c0cf) to head (7a9e00b).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/relay/src/lib/eth.ts	81.81%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
packages/relay/src/lib/clients/mirrorNodeClient.ts	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3433      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.20%   84.45%   -0.76%     
==========================================
  Files          69       69              
  Lines        4711     4772      +61     
  Branches     1048     1064      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits         4014     4030      +16     
- Misses        397      428      +31     
- Partials      300      314      +14     

Flag	Coverage Δ
config-service	98.14% <ø> (ø)
relay	79.43% <83.33%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
server	83.30% <ø> (ø)
ws-server	36.66% <ø> (ø)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/relay/src/utils.ts	97.87% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
packages/relay/src/lib/clients/mirrorNodeClient.ts	88.57% <50.00%> (+0.25%)	⬆️
packages/relay/src/lib/eth.ts	81.70% <81.81%> (-4.42%)	⬇️

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes