chore: add --encoded-constructor-args to verify-contract as alias for --constructor-args

[Leechael]

Related: #6453

[DaniPopes]

I dont think the two commands' flags are the same even if they have the same name

[Leechael]

So what you purpose for? Considering:

forge verify-contract  --constructor-args a b c

vs:

forge verify-contract --constructor-args a --constructor-args b --constructor-args c

Related previous PR: #622

Why does the behavior of --constructor-args differ between create and verify-contract when submitting a contract with multiple constructor arguments?

[DaniPopes]

verify-contract accepts the already-encoded arguments in one hex string, while script accepts the human-readable form that you would use anywhere else, so I'd rather change the verify-contract behavior.

[Leechael]

verify-contract accepts the already-encoded arguments in one hex string

Is it better to change the argument name to be more explicit? e.g. --encoded-contructor-args

[Evalir]

@Leechael changing them would be a breaking change and we'd rather avoid this—but we can add an alias and recommend that instead. wdyt @DaniPopes / @mattsse ?

[Leechael]

If we can reach a conclusion, I would like to follow the decision and making that change.

[Evalir]

@Leechael I believe the way forward is just add an alias to --constructor-args, called --encoded-constructor-args for verify-contract.

[Evalir]

hey @Leechael—added the change I described and changed the PR name—thanks!