feat(benchmarks): add eth transfer cases for repricing

[jochem-brouwer]

🗒️ Description

We have ether transfer benchmarks, but they're incomplete. We're missing:

• Non-existing EOA
• Existing EOA (balance-only, zero nonce, no code)
• Contract account

For the latter two cases, we want to use pre-existing accounts from perf-devnet-3, mainnet, or jochemnet snapshots instead of creating them during pre-allocation. This keeps the accounts outside the client cache and prevents benchmark skewing.

Verification on gas-benchmarks with 300M: https://github.com/NethermindEth/gas-benchmarks/actions/runs/25720366344/job/75519841684

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

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

  just 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

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Changes:

I split the original ether transfer test into two: test_ether_transfer (the existing one) and test_ether_transfer_on_receiver (new). This avoids skipping test parametrization. In addition, the latest implementation now accounts for the execution cost of Bittrex-created contracts.

Question:

After review, i notice the scenario of diff_to_nonexistent in test_ether_transfers_onchain_receivers is the same as empty_account x diff_acc_to_diff_acc parametrization in test_ether_transfers benchmark

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.01%. Comparing base (44923d4) to head (6892eb2).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on forks/amsterdam.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           forks/amsterdam    #2837      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            88.62%   90.01%   +1.38%     
===================================================
  Files                  577      539      -38     
  Lines                35659    32618    -3041     
  Branches              3490     3030     -460     
===================================================
- Hits                 31604    29361    -2243     
+ Misses                3492     2699     -793     
+ Partials               563      558       -5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	90.01% <ø> (+1.38%)	⬆️

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.

[fselmo]

I'm not really sure how to properly test this (I can't locally) but I left some things I had questions on and some nits. @LouisTsai-Csie can you give a proper sanity check on the actual test run here? If so, can you give a final approve / review here?

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Nice review and thanks @fselmo , we could not test it out without snapshot, i will test it in gas-benchmarks, review and merge.

Edit: this is the latest benchmark payload generation with receipt check, it is a successful run: https://github.com/NethermindEth/gas-benchmarks/actions/runs/25806153732/job/75809369217