feat: static cost analysis

[brady-stacks]

Allow measuring static cost statically for contracts.

• gives min/max execution cost without executing the contracts
• gives trait call-counts to determine if excessive cost is incurred by trait calls
• interfaces with clarinet LSP to give codelens functionality in-editor (here)

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ tippenein
❌ brady-stacks
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 63.23296% with 464 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 58.07%. Comparing base (77f1583) to head (5eeafae).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
clarity/src/vm/costs/analysis.rs	69.33%	184 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/ast/static_cost/mod.rs	41.73%	134 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/tests/analysis.rs	49.36%	80 Missing ⚠️
clarity/src/vm/ast/static_cost/trait_counter.rs	75.91%	66 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (58.07%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (77f1583) and HEAD (5eeafae). Click for more details.

HEAD has 72 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (77f1583)	HEAD (5eeafae)
	120	48

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop    #6704       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage    75.65%   58.07%   -17.59%     
============================================
  Files          577      581        +4     
  Lines       357690   358952     +1262     
============================================
- Hits        270624   208446    -62178     
- Misses       87066   150506    +63440     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
clarity/src/vm/ast/mod.rs	41.20% <ø> (-28.15%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/costs/mod.rs	76.02% <ø> (-7.29%)	⬇️
clarity/src/vm/tests/mod.rs	51.68% <ø> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/ast/static_cost/trait_counter.rs	75.91% <75.91%> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/tests/analysis.rs	49.36% <49.36%> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/ast/static_cost/mod.rs	41.73% <41.73%> (ø)
clarity/src/vm/costs/analysis.rs	69.33% <69.33%> (ø)

... and 403 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 77f1583...5eeafae. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[brice-stacks]

Could you refactor a bit and use lookup_reserved_functions here? We could probably do some refactoring in the clarity crate to make this easier to use and to ensure that we use the cost functions correctly for those functions that are SpecialFunctions and not NativeFunctions. I think there will be some discrepancies with the way those costs are computed. For example, let passes the length of the bindings list into its cost function, not the length of its total args.

[brady-stacks]

I updated to use this 👌 . It cleaned up a lot. It did indeed change some costs (len, concat, etc)

[brice-stacks]

The cost contract to use will actually change with the epoch, not with the Clarity version. You may want to pass an epoch in here and use that to select the cost function, or it might make sense to just always default to the latest.

[brady-stacks]

👌 Passed epoch as well. Ended up defaulting Epoch1.0 to use costs1 since it doesn't have a direct mapping (I think)