test: rm unit tests for calc_next_block_base_fee

[tcoratger]

Describe the feature

In the codebase, we still have some places where we unit test the calc_next_block_base_fee method:

reth/crates/chainspec/src/constants/mod.rs

Lines 18 to 48 in 7401f46

	#[test]
	fn calculate_base_fee_success() {
	let base_fee = [
	1000000000, 1000000000, 1000000000, 1072671875, 1059263476, 1049238967, 1049238967, 0,
	1, 2,
	];
	let gas_used = [
	10000000, 10000000, 10000000, 9000000, 10001000, 0, 10000000, 10000000, 10000000,
	10000000,
	];
	let gas_limit = [
	10000000, 12000000, 14000000, 10000000, 14000000, 2000000, 18000000, 18000000,
	18000000, 18000000,
	];
	let next_base_fee = [
	1125000000, 1083333333, 1053571428, 1179939062, 1116028649, 918084097, 1063811730, 1,
	2, 3,
	];
	for i in 0..base_fee.len() {
	assert_eq!(
	next_base_fee[i],
	calc_next_block_base_fee(
	gas_used[i] as u128,
	gas_limit[i] as u128,
	base_fee[i] as u128,
	crate::BaseFeeParams::ethereum(),
	) as u64
	);
	}
	}

reth/crates/chainspec/src/constants/optimism.rs

Lines 53 to 83 in 7401f46

	#[test]
	fn calculate_optimism_base_fee_success() {
	let base_fee = [
	1000000000, 1000000000, 1000000000, 1072671875, 1059263476, 1049238967, 1049238967, 0,
	1, 2,
	];
	let gas_used = [
	10000000, 10000000, 10000000, 9000000, 10001000, 0, 10000000, 10000000, 10000000,
	10000000,
	];
	let gas_limit = [
	10000000, 12000000, 14000000, 10000000, 14000000, 2000000, 18000000, 18000000,
	18000000, 18000000,
	];
	let next_base_fee = [
	1100000048, 1080000000, 1065714297, 1167067046, 1128881311, 1028254188, 1098203452, 1,
	2, 3,
	];
	for i in 0..base_fee.len() {
	assert_eq!(
	next_base_fee[i],
	calc_next_block_base_fee(
	gas_used[i] as u128,
	gas_limit[i] as u128,
	base_fee[i] as u128,
	OP_BASE_FEE_PARAMS,
	) as u64
	);
	}
	}

But this method is already widely tested here:

https://github.com/alloy-rs/alloy/blob/ec9e13e6336717b988b6ec2908bb4ceec6e874a5/crates/eips/src/eip1559/helpers.rs#L73-L103

Maybe we could:

• Remove these tests which seem useless on reth
• Add one or two scenarios on alloy if there are any missing but I don't have the impression, the function already seems to be well covered on alloy.

Additional context

No response

[mattsse]

we can remove those, yes

actually, I don't mind having them, especially the op ones.

[tcoratger]

we can remove those, yes

actually, I don't mind having them, especially the op ones.

Maybe we can migrate the op ones to alloy and remove all from reth?

[mattsse]

sg!
we can do both prs in parallel