chore: bump the max tx bytes in the mempool config

[cmwaters]

No description provided.

[rootulp]

I think this change makes sense b/c otherwise when governance bumps the gov max square size param from 64 to 128, a transaction that occupies (roughly) more than half the new square size will be rejected by all validators with the default max tx bytes. Validators can accept by modifying their local MaxTxBytes in config.toml but it seems prescient to bump the default now.

[optional]

1. Do we want to change it here?

   celestia-app/test/util/testnode/config.go

   Lines 156 to 159 in a495d40

   	// set the mempool's MaxTxBytes to allow the testnode to accept a
   	// transaction that fills the entire square. Any blob transaction larger
   	// than the square size will still fail no matter what.
   	tmCfg.Mempool.MaxTxBytes = appconsts.DefaultMaxBytes

2. Do we want to extract an appconst const for it?

[discussion]

stateful transaction size check in CheckTx

The stateful check in CheckTx uses appconsts.ShareSize instead of appconsts.ContinuationSparseShareContentSize here:

// squareBytes returns the number of bytes in a square for the given squareSize.
func squareBytes(squareSize int) int {
	numShares := squareSize * squareSize
	return numShares * appconsts.ShareSize
}

Mostly because the upper bound max blob size doesn't need to be exact. Similarly, MaxTxBytes doesn't need to be exact and I think it's slightly cleaner to rely on appconsts.ShareSize which is much less likely to change than appconsts.ContinuationSparseShareContentSize which could change with a share version bump. So we may consider changing appconsts.DefaultMaxBytes and cfg.Mempool.MaxTxBytes to calculate based on appconsts.ShareSize but definitely optional.

[evan-forbes]

I could see the benefit of switching to something simpler for readability. I'm also fine with using a more accurate value

[cmwaters]

Do we want to change it here?

Yeah that makes sense

Do we want to extract an appconst const for it?

I'm indifferent. If it were used in more places I'd probably be for it

[rootulp]

I like appconsts for this but definitely not blocking on it.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2219 (a176976) into main (3dd1ba6) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2219      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   21.54%   21.53%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         127      127              
  Lines       14329    14335       +6     
==========================================
  Hits         3087     3087              
- Misses      10939    10945       +6     
  Partials      303      303              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
app/default_overrides.go	16.51% <0.00%> (-0.97%)	⬇️

[evan-forbes]

do we need to update this branch for the backport to work?