fix(common): v3 transaction hash calculation

[yoavGrs]

Pull Request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Build-related changes
• Documentation content changes
• Other (please describe):

What is the current behavior?

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Other information

---

This change is 

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1210 (c9b0674) into main (2cf68ee) will increase coverage by 3.10%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 94.41%.

❗ Current head c9b0674 differs from pull request most recent head a12b43a. Consider uploading reports for the commit a12b43a to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1210      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.05%   74.16%   +3.10%     
==========================================
  Files          83       78       -5     
  Lines        7947     7560     -387     
  Branches     7947     7560     -387     
==========================================
- Hits         5647     5607      -40     
+ Misses       1390     1066     -324     
+ Partials      910      887      -23     

Files	Coverage Δ
crates/papyrus_common/src/block_hash.rs	83.17% <100.00%> (-1.57%)	⬇️
crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs	93.64% <94.18%> (+38.13%)	⬆️

... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[ShahakShama]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @yoavGrs)

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 228 at r1 (raw file):

        .chain(&l1_resource)
        .chain(&l2_resource)
        .get_poseidon_hash())

Add comment why is this poseidon (with maybe reference to starknet docs)

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 231 at r1 (raw file):

}

// Concat of: [0 | resource_name (56 bit) | max_amount (64 bit) | max_price_per_unit (128 bit)].

Same as below

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 244 at r1 (raw file):

}

// Concat of [0...0 (192 bit) | nonce_mode (32 bit) | fee_mode (32 bit)].

You're already describing the concat in the expression. Consider instead
Receives nonce_mode and fee_mode and returns [0...0 ...

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash_test.rs line 47 at r1 (raw file):

    // The details were taken from Starknet Goerli. You can found the transactions by hash in:
    // https://alpha4.starknet.io/feeder_gateway/get_transaction?transactionHash=<transaction_hash>
    // The V3 transaction hashes generated by internal simulations.

generated -> are generated

[yoavGrs]

Reviewable status: 2 of 4 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ShahakShama)

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 228 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

Add comment why is this poseidon (with maybe reference to starknet docs)

1. A node doesn't design the hash.
2. It is not in the docs yet.

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 231 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

Same as below

Same as below.

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash_test.rs line 47 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

generated -> are generated

were generated?

[ShahakShama]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @yoavGrs)

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 231 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

Same as below.

you did not do the same fix as below

[yoavGrs]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), all discussions resolved (waiting on @yoavGrs)

---

crates/papyrus_common/src/transaction_hash.rs line 231 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

you did not do the same fix as below

Done.
(I did the same as above :( )

[ShahakShama]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @yoavGrs)

[ShahakShama]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @yoavGrs)