feat(eip4844): add EIP4844 to the TxType enum

[tcoratger]

Should solve #3952.

[mattsse]

smol nit

[mattsse]

I think we can do this already

because does not conflict with the existing database

any objections @joshieDo ?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3953 (7630a31) into main (f98b152) will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 90.90%.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
crates/rpc/rpc-types/src/eth/transaction/mod.rs	44.80% <ø> (ø)
crates/primitives/src/transaction/tx_type.rs	69.69% <75.00%> (-0.31%)	⬇️
crates/primitives/src/receipt.rs	83.39% <100.00%> (+0.39%)	⬆️

... and 26 files with indirect coverage changes

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests	16.36% <0.00%> (+0.79%)	⬆️
unit-tests	64.43% <90.90%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
reth binary	27.16% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
blockchain tree	83.04% <ø> (ø)
pipeline	89.82% <ø> (ø)
storage (db)	74.30% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
trie	94.70% <ø> (ø)
txpool	45.74% <ø> (-0.26%)	⬇️
networking	77.62% <ø> (-0.08%)	⬇️
rpc	58.37% <ø> (-0.37%)	⬇️
consensus	64.46% <ø> (ø)
revm	33.68% <ø> (ø)
payload builder	6.61% <ø> (ø)
primitives	87.80% <90.90%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

[mattsse]

lgtm, pending @joshieDo

[joshieDo]

apart from the CI error, it looks good to me with a but: We will have to break the database in the future, if we want to add new transaction types, because we are only using 2 bits to identify it currently

[mattsse]

gotcha,

@joshieDo mind opening a PR with some docs for this? just so that we forget the next time we touch this