test: improve common package coverage

[skosito]

Description

note: too many files changed in diff because i moved some files (81 receipts.json files) and added files for transactions data (81 tx.json files)

• increases codecov for common package from 36.1% to 91.6% (some parts are tricky to test, but should be good enough coverage)
• adds tx files for ethereum proof tests, same block as receipts
• moves some data to testdata to avoid duplication, but still there is todo with existing issue to centralize it further
• remove some unused code
• simplifies some small parts

Closes: #1833

Type of change

New tests

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Include instructions and any relevant details so others can reproduce.

• Tested CCTX in localnet
• Tested in development environment
• Go unit tests
• Go integration tests
• Tested via GitHub Actions

Checklist:

• I have added unit tests that prove my fix feature works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.12%. Comparing base (35acb4a) to head (952dc0a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1903      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    48.82%   52.12%   +3.30%     
===========================================
  Files          235      235              
  Lines        13381    13347      -34     
===========================================
+ Hits          6533     6957     +424     
+ Misses        6405     5953     -452     
+ Partials       443      437       -6     

Files	Coverage Δ
common/address.go	100.00% <ø> (+31.57%)	⬆️
common/chain.go	96.69% <ø> (+65.24%)	⬆️
common/coin.go	100.00% <100.00%> (+60.00%)	⬆️
common/gas_limits.go	100.00% <100.00%> (+100.00%)	⬆️
common/pubkey.go	82.41% <ø> (+48.78%)	⬆️
common/tss.go	82.60% <ø> (+82.60%)	⬆️

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[lumtis]

This looks good to me, great 👍
I think we can also do #1905 for the code structure. But this can be done in another PR

[skosito]

This looks good to me, great 👍 I think we can also do #1905 for the code structure. But this can be done in another PR

sure, i can do this structure task once this is merged

[kingpinXD]

left minor comments
LGTM

[skosito]

left minor comments LGTM

tnx, fixed