Additions to compiled_contracts table

[manuelwedler]

This tackles a few improvements to the compiled_contracts table:

• Allows to optionally store transientStorageLayout under the compilation_artifacts column (see Adding transientStorageLayout to outputs argotorg/sourcify#1654)
• Makes userdoc, devdoc and storageLayout optional instead of mandatory keys under compilation_artifacts for consistency (see older Solidity versions issue: Verification of pre 0.4.11 contracts argotorg/sourcify#2296)
• Adds new additional_input column to compiled_contracts (see Add new additional_input field in VerA argotorg/sourcify#2001)

[kuzdogan]

@claude review

[kuzdogan]

The test data here does not accurately reflect the actual Vyper storage_layout_overrides structure. Per vyper/pull/4370, the format maps file path → variable name → {slot, type, n_slots} (two nesting levels), but the test collapses this to one level (treating "x" as a file path with a direct {slot, type, n_slots} value instead of a variable name map).

Since validate_additional_input intentionally does not validate the inner structure of storage_layout_overrides, the constraint test itself is still correct — but the test data is misleading. Suggest updating to:

dummy_compiled_contract.additional_input = {
    "storage_layout_overrides": {
        "contracts/foo.vy": {
            "x": {"slot": "0x0", "type": "uint256", "n_slots": 1}
        }
    }
}

[kuzdogan]

The test data here does not accurately reflect the actual Vyper storage_layout_overrides structure. Per vyper/pull/4370, the format maps file path → variable name → {slot, type, n_slots} (two nesting levels), but the test collapses this to one level (treating "x" as a file path with a direct {slot, type, n_slots} value instead of a variable name map).

Since validate_additional_input intentionally does not validate the inner structure of storage_layout_overrides, the constraint test itself is still correct — but the test data is misleading. Suggest updating to:

dummy_compiled_contract.additional_input = {
    "storage_layout_overrides": {
        "contracts/foo.vy": {
            "x": {"slot": "0x0", "type": "uint256", "n_slots": 1}
        }
    }
}

[kuzdogan]

Comment from Claude.

I think we are missing one level of mapping?

[manuelwedler]

I don't think so. Claude is just being stupid here.

We have "contracts/foo.vy" -> "x" -> {"slot": "0x0", "type": "uint256", "n_slots": 1}
what matches Claude's suggested type file path → variable name → {slot, type, n_slots}

[kuzdogan]

Small comment from Claude finding. Not important.

lgtm

[kuzdogan]

Comment from Claude.

I think we are missing one level of mapping?