Forbid storage key collisions between storage and StorageMap

[ironcev]

Description

This PR fixes #6317 by introducing two "storage domains", one for the storage fields defined inside of the storage declaration, and a different one for storage slots generated inside of the StorageMap.

The PR strictly fixes the issue described in #6317 by applying the recommendation proposed in the issue.
A general approach to storage key domains will be discussed as a part of the Configurable and composable storage RFC.

Additionally, the PR:

• adds expressive diagnostics for the duplicated storage keys warning.
• removes the misleading internal compiler error that always followed the storage key type mismatch error (see demo below).

Closes #6317.

Breaking Changes

The PR changes the way how storage keys are generated for storage fields. Instead of sha256("storage::ns1::ns2.field_name") we now use sha256((0u8, "storage::ns1::ns2.field_name")).

This is a breaking change for those who relied on the storage key calculation.

Demo

Before, every type-mismatch was always followed by an ICE, because the compilation continued despite the type-mismatch.

This is solved now, and the type-mismatch has a dedicated help message.

Checklist

• I have linked to any relevant issues.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have updated the documentation where relevant (API docs, the reference, and the Sway book).
  • If my change requires substantial documentation changes, I have requested support from the DevRel team
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• I have added (or requested a maintainer to add) the necessary Breaking* or New Feature labels where relevant.
• I have done my best to ensure that my PR adheres to the Fuel Labs Code Review Standards.
• I have requested a review from the relevant team or maintainers.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for b830f90

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.0±0.01ms	5.1±0.09ms	+2.00%
code_lens	283.6±6.98ns	285.6±7.94ns	+0.71%
compile	2.6±0.04s	2.7±0.05s	+3.85%
completion	4.6±0.05ms	4.5±0.01ms	-2.17%
did_change_with_caching	2.6±0.03s	2.5±0.04s	-3.85%
document_symbol	916.9±35.99µs	903.3±29.60µs	-1.48%
format	70.4±0.65ms	67.6±1.08ms	-3.98%
goto_definition	338.8±5.42µs	345.8±7.19µs	+2.07%
highlight	8.7±0.01ms	8.7±0.05ms	0.00%
hover	489.7±4.49µs	498.6±5.54µs	+1.82%
idents_at_position	118.0±0.29µs	117.4±0.39µs	-0.51%
inlay_hints	622.9±22.41µs	628.0±21.49µs	+0.82%
on_enter	2.1±0.05µs	2.0±0.08µs	-4.76%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.04ms	3.6±0.04ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	337.1±5.52µs	344.4±8.52µs	+2.17%
rename	9.0±0.01ms	9.0±0.14ms	0.00%
semantic_tokens	1244.4±11.46µs	1246.6±8.35µs	+0.18%
token_at_position	336.3±2.48µs	335.2±1.45µs	-0.33%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.03ms	3.5±0.01ms	-2.78%
tokens_for_file	400.4±2.18µs	404.4±3.37µs	+1.00%
traverse	34.1±0.89ms	34.6±0.54ms	+1.47%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 4944773

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.1±0.10ms	5.0±0.10ms	-1.96%
code_lens	290.9±9.27ns	288.6±9.83ns	-0.79%
compile	2.7±0.03s	2.7±0.07s	0.00%
completion	4.5±0.06ms	4.5±0.03ms	0.00%
did_change_with_caching	2.5±0.06s	2.6±0.03s	+4.00%
document_symbol	894.6±32.14µs	960.8±15.76µs	+7.40%
format	72.3±1.04ms	67.7±0.53ms	-6.36%
goto_definition	341.6±7.17µs	341.3±7.31µs	-0.09%
highlight	8.7±0.17ms	8.8±0.16ms	+1.15%
hover	493.7±6.73µs	496.2±9.74µs	+0.51%
idents_at_position	118.6±0.41µs	118.5±0.71µs	-0.08%
inlay_hints	631.3±12.00µs	631.4±28.47µs	+0.02%
on_enter	2.1±0.05µs	2.0±0.07µs	-4.76%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.03ms	3.6±0.03ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	342.0±4.27µs	341.5±7.01µs	-0.15%
rename	9.0±0.16ms	9.0±0.22ms	0.00%
semantic_tokens	1228.1±13.18µs	1252.6±19.42µs	+1.99%
token_at_position	338.6±3.70µs	334.1±2.17µs	-1.33%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.06ms	3.6±0.02ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	398.8±2.36µs	403.3±3.21µs	+1.13%
traverse	33.6±0.66ms	33.8±0.87ms	+0.60%

[IGI-111]

This being a breaking change, it should be behind a feature flag.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for f370432

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.2±0.17ms	5.4±0.19ms	+3.85%
code_lens	284.3±11.69ns	285.3±12.64ns	+0.35%
compile	2.8±0.05s	2.8±0.09s	0.00%
completion	4.8±0.19ms	4.8±0.15ms	0.00%
did_change_with_caching	2.7±0.04s	2.8±0.04s	+3.70%
document_symbol	981.3±30.14µs	883.9±23.15µs	-9.93%
format	71.3±0.89ms	69.2±0.91ms	-2.95%
goto_definition	338.6±6.34µs	338.0±7.68µs	-0.18%
highlight	9.0±0.22ms	9.4±0.30ms	+4.44%
hover	545.9±5.93µs	491.7±6.54µs	-9.93%
idents_at_position	118.0±0.48µs	117.3±0.29µs	-0.59%
inlay_hints	629.7±27.39µs	641.6±24.28µs	+1.89%
on_enter	2.0±0.04µs	1997.1±84.59ns	-0.14%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.07ms	3.8±0.08ms	+5.56%
prepare_rename	335.5±5.47µs	333.1±6.80µs	-0.72%
rename	9.4±0.21ms	9.5±0.25ms	+1.06%
semantic_tokens	1194.1±19.04µs	1209.0±10.56µs	+1.25%
token_at_position	330.1±1.51µs	329.3±2.38µs	-0.24%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.08ms	3.8±0.10ms	+5.56%
tokens_for_file	396.4±2.61µs	397.4±3.10µs	+0.25%
traverse	36.0±0.93ms	36.2±0.83ms	+0.56%

[ironcev]

As discussed, converting to draft until we get some initial infrastructure for feature flags as discussed in the RFC on bringing changes to the compiler

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #6466 will not alter performance

_{Comparing ironcev/6317-storage-collision (837b10d) with master (1bb80d5)}

Summary

✅ 21 untouched benchmarks