chore(tests): Update 7951 Checklist Markers

[kclowes]

🗒️ Description

Went through the docs checklist and added either N/A as appropriate, or a checkmark using pytest.mark. Also added a couple minor tests that were missing.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

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

  uvx --with=tox-uv tox -e lint,typecheck,spellcheck,markdownlint

• All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
• All: Considered adding an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
• 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.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Thanks for this PR! But i notice there are two co-existing systems to mark the checklist item

Based on the documentation. The marker would use the enum style method

@EIPChecklist.TransactionType.Test.IntrinsicValidity.GasLimit.Exact()
def test_exact_intrinsic_gas(state_test: StateTestFiller):
    """Test transaction with exact intrinsic gas limit."""
    # Test implementation
    pass

But i think your current approach also works:

@pytest.mark.eip_checklist("transaction_type/test/intrinsic_validity/gas_limit/exact")
def test_exact_intrinsic_gas(state_test: StateTestFiller):
    """Test transaction with exact intrinsic gas limit."""
    # Test implementation
    pass

Which one should we use for consistency? cc @marioevz as checklist PR owner

[kclowes]

Yeah, either way does work. I'm happy to use either one, I just went with the existing convention in the file.

[LouisTsai-Csie]

Leave some comment! Thanks for this

[marioevz]

Yeah, either way does work. I'm happy to use either one, I just went with the existing convention in the file.

I think @EIPChecklist.TransactionType.Test.IntrinsicValidity.GasLimit.Exact() is the newer approach and should be used from now on, if you could spend some time to update this in the files you touched it would be very nice too 🙏

[marioevz]

LGTM, just the comment about how we apply the markers, if we can we should use the newer approach. Thanks for this! :)

[LouisTsai-Csie]

No problem from my side! I will update my PR accordingly as well!

[spencer-tb]

LGTM! All comments applied so merging.