fix: emit receipt for costs-4 deploy

[brice-stacks]

This receipt should have been emitted when initializing epoch 3.3. This change is not consensus breaking, but it does change the events that the API will see.

[brice-stacks]

Removed from the queue to add changeling entry. Will re-request reviews shortly. 🙏

[brice-stacks]

@adriano-stacks I added a note to the changelog. We can include something similar to the release notes. Let me know if you'd like to add or modify this.

[adriano-stacks]

Thanks @brice-stacks. I have a couple questions:

1. Do we have a recommendation for how to restore chain state to before 3.3?
2. Given the events are deterministic and assuming that these particular events are going to be relatively small, would it make sense to export the mainnet events somewhere and give users a path to import them into the API directly (without reverting the chain state)?

[brice-stacks]

1. Do we have a recommendation for how to restore chain state to before 3.3?

I would recommend selecting an archive file from before the fork, then boot from that. I can add a suggestion in the changelog, but I don't want to be overly prescriptive.

2. Given the events are deterministic and assuming that these particular events are going to be relatively small, would it make sense to export the mainnet events somewhere and give users a path to import them into the API directly (without reverting the chain state)?

I'd say this is up to the API team to figure out if there is a good way to do it or not. Maybe we should wait to hear from them to see if there is something they'd want us to put in this changelog, or maybe a link to their documentation on it.

[adriano-stacks]

I would recommend selecting an archive file from before the fork, then boot from that. I can add a suggestion in the changelog, but I don't want to be overly prescriptive.

Got it thanks. What do you think of this?

I'd say this is up to the API team to figure out if there is a good way to do it or not. Maybe we should wait to hear from them to see if there is something they'd want us to put in this changelog, or maybe a link to their documentation on it.

If you are ok with the suggestion (or something along those lines) I think we fine.

[brice-stacks]

I like it, thanks!

[adriano-stacks]

Thank you! I'll let the others approve the code changes, I am good with the changelog.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 71.68%. Comparing base (dc555b4) to head (177f412).
⚠️ Report is 101 commits behind head on develop.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (71.68%) 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 (dc555b4) and HEAD (177f412). Click for more details.

HEAD has 78 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (dc555b4)	HEAD (177f412)
	124	46

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6679      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    79.58%   71.68%   -7.90%     
===========================================
  Files          575      577       +2     
  Lines       355807   356944    +1137     
===========================================
- Hits        283157   255891   -27266     
- Misses       72650   101053   +28403     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/clarity_vm/clarity.rs	86.86% <100.00%> (-6.32%)	⬇️

... and 286 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 dc555b4...177f412. 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.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.