Feat: update pessimistic cost estimator to differentiate by contract sender

[kantai]

This change adds a field to the pessimistic cost estimator's lookup key. It doesn't change the table schema, so it's compatible with existing cost estimator tables, though it will end up resetting cost estimates. This change allows the cost estimator to differentiate between contracts with different contract senders. In most respects, this PR is a fix for incorrect behavior on the part of the pessimistic estimator, but I'm not sure this rises to the level of necessitating a hotfix, as the cost estimator's current behavior still allows miners to progress the network, albeit slightly less efficiently. If necessary, though, this could be rebased as a hotfix very easily (the patch is essentially a one line change).

[gregorycoppola]

So you are adding the address of the user calling the contract?

What motivates this change? What problem is it solving and what data suggests it is working?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2984 (8750b69) into develop (dc34f9e) will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is 78.69%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2984      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    82.79%   82.63%   -0.16%     
===========================================
  Files          235      237       +2     
  Lines       190437   193149    +2712     
===========================================
+ Hits        157672   159616    +1944     
- Misses       32765    33533     +768     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/chainstate/stacks/db/mod.rs	86.78% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
src/codec/macros.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/core/mod.rs	98.01% <ø> (ø)
src/lib.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libclarity.rs	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/net/neighbors.rs	38.31% <0.00%> (-0.99%)	⬇️
src/util/mod.rs	87.80% <ø> (ø)
src/net/rpc.rs	30.60% <18.85%> (-0.44%)	⬇️
src/net/mod.rs	67.42% <33.33%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
src/net/p2p.rs	61.34% <35.79%> (-3.78%)	⬇️
... and 46 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fd3f28d...8750b69. Read the comment docs.

[kantai]

So you are adding the address of the user calling the contract?

No -- this is the contract publisher address.

What motivates this change? What problem is it solving and what data suggests it is working?

Without differentiating by contract publisher, two contracts with the same name, but different publishers, would share an estimate, even though the contracts are actually different contracts. This isn't rooted in data, but it is definitely incorrect behavior (which is why this is isn't necessarily a hotfix), and the added unit test demonstrates the correct behavior (separation between different contracts).

[gregorycoppola]

Oh I see. yes this would seem to be a logical bug.

[pavitthrap]

lgtm!

[blockstack-devops]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.