feat: deployless call via bytecode

[jxom]

Adding ability to perform a deployless contract call via bytecode.

---

PR-Codex overview

This PR introduces Deployless Call patterns via bytecode and factory. It enhances contract interaction and testing capabilities.

Detailed summary

• Added support for Deployless Calls via Bytecode in writeContract and readContract
• Improved contract testing with simulateContract and writeContract updates
• Updated CounterfactualDeploymentFailedError constructor to handle optional factory address
• Added deployless flag in ContractFunctionReturnType for deployless calls
• Included new contracts for Deployless Call via Bytecode and Factory
• Updated documentation for Deployless Calls via Bytecode and Factory in readContract.md

The following files were skipped due to too many changes: src/actions/public/call.ts, site/pages/docs/actions/public/call.md, src/actions/public/call.test.ts, test/src/abis.ts

✨ Ask PR-Codex anything about this PR by commenting with /codex {your question}

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 13750b4

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
viem	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
viem	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Jun 15, 2024 3:37am

[github-actions]

size-limit report 📦

Path	Size	Loading time (3g)	Running time (snapdragon)	Total time
viem (esm)	58.32 KB (+0.44% 🔺)	1.2 s (+0.44% 🔺)	13.4 s (+44.61% 🔺)	14.6 s
viem (cjs)	69.28 KB (+0.21% 🔺)	1.4 s (+0.21% 🔺)	10 s (-46.35% 🔽)	11.4 s
viem (minimal surface - tree-shaking)	3.31 KB (0%)	67 ms (0%)	91 ms (-57.81% 🔽)	157 ms
viem/accounts	73.84 KB (0%)	1.5 s (0%)	1.5 s (-70.1% 🔽)	3 s
viem/accounts (tree-shaking)	18.91 KB (0%)	379 ms (0%)	1.6 s (+65.38% 🔺)	2 s
viem/actions	45.23 KB (+0.41% 🔺)	905 ms (+0.41% 🔺)	3.8 s (-39.65% 🔽)	4.7 s
viem/actions (tree-shaking)	318 B (0%)	10 ms (0%)	34 ms (-5.06% 🔽)	44 ms
viem/chains	28.52 KB (0%)	571 ms (0%)	9.7 s (+98.73% 🔺)	10.3 s
viem/chains (tree-shaking)	324 B (0%)	10 ms (0%)	284 ms (+404.17% 🔺)	294 ms
viem/chains/utils	1.02 KB (0%)	21 ms (0%)	49 ms (-40.71% 🔽)	69 ms
viem/ens	45.23 KB (+0.41% 🔺)	905 ms (+0.41% 🔺)	4.5 s (+44.72% 🔺)	5.4 s
viem/ens (tree-shaking)	21.93 KB (+0.9% 🔺)	439 ms (+0.9% 🔺)	2.5 s (-64.28% 🔽)	2.9 s
viem/siwe	29.64 KB (+0.37% 🔺)	593 ms (+0.37% 🔺)	3.4 s (+25.45% 🔺)	4 s
viem/siwe (tree-shaking)	28.56 KB (+0.68% 🔺)	572 ms (+0.68% 🔺)	4.2 s (+3.79% 🔺)	4.8 s

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.63014% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.62%. Comparing base (07dcb05) to head (13750b4).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/errors/contract.ts	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2408   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.61%   99.62%           
=======================================
  Files         684      684           
  Lines       57609    57658   +49     
  Branches     2784     2789    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        57390    57440   +50     
- Misses        203      204    +1     
+ Partials       16       14    -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[tmm]

Should we call this code instead of bytecode? Aligns better with Ethereum terminology 'eth_getCode' (the getBytecode action should probably be called getCode too).

[jxom]

Yeah let’s do it. Guess it also consistent with code in state overrides.

[tmm]

#2411