Update AttestationRegistry.sol: Optimized 'For' loops

[0xScratch]

What does this PR do?

This PR is solely aimed at reducing gas costs by enhancing the 'for' loops.

Fixes #
Changed the structure of 'for' loops. This will help -> https://gist.github.com/grGred/9bab8b9bad0cd42fc23d4e31e7347144#for-loops-improvement

Also, make a double-check whether that unchecked block doesn't create any unwanted bugs or errors.
However, i++ to ++i might won't be a problem.

Type of change

• Chore
• Bug fix
• New feature
• Documentation update

Check list

• Unit tests for any smart contract change
• Contracts and functions are documented

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #272 (023a9fb) into dev (c9283aa) will increase coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #272      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.40%   93.53%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          13       13              
  Lines         197      201       +4     
  Branches       46       46              
==========================================
+ Hits          184      188       +4     
  Misses          8        8              
  Partials        5        5              

Files	Coverage Δ
contracts/src/AttestationRegistry.sol	95.00% <100.00%> (+0.35%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[alainncls]

Hey @Aryan9592 👋
Thanks for your contribution to Verax (once again)!

I was running some comparative tests, and if I'm not mistaken, when running this new version of the massImport method, the difference is 136 gas.
I feel like this is not a huge change for a degraded code readability, what do you think?

In any case, feel free to join us on Discord if you want to learn more about Verax or wish to contribute!

[0xScratch]

Actually, solidity introduced these unchecked blocks right after the 0.8 version, and these types of changes are being used in various repositories and are now familiar to many devs out there. Still, if you find them not that good as compared to the readability factor, we can remove that unchecked block inside the massImport function. Won't be a big deal to revert some changes back. and changes like uint256 i = 0; -> uint256 i; and i++ -> ++i are quite common..
Talking about the gas difference, when these changes sum up they become really valuable sometimes..Maybe I be digging even more into this codebase

[0xScratch]

In any case, feel free to join us on Discord if you want to learn more about Verax or wish to contribute!

Send me the invite!

[orbmis]

@Aryan9592 : https://discord.gg/Sq4EmYdBEk

[alainncls]

Hey @Aryan9592 I didn't forget about this PR!
Instead of introducing unchecked blocks in the contracts, I created an external uncheckedInc function to call. in the loops.

The corresponding PR is there if you're interested: #350
For example, when running the massImport function with 100 payloads, we decrease the gas cost by 0.04%.
I'm closing this PR in favor of #350 if that's OK with you.

[0xScratch]

Yep that's great @alainncls