op-acceptance-tests: interop txplan: tx execution in same timestamp

[pcw109550]

Description

This PR attempts to implement interop txplan tests: Transaction executes message within same block (same timestamp)

Additional context

For #15007

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 42.30%. Comparing base (3424147) to head (fef9e09).
Report is 25 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ptance-tests/tests/interop/interop_test_helpers.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (3424147) and HEAD (fef9e09). Click for more details.

HEAD has 6 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (3424147)	HEAD (fef9e09)
	2	1
cannon-go-tests-32	2	0
cannon-go-tests-64	2	0
contracts-bedrock-tests	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop   #15012       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage    82.13%   42.30%   -39.84%     
============================================
  Files          175      985      +810     
  Lines        10324    88920    +78596     
============================================
+ Hits          8480    37620    +29140     
- Misses        1654    48169    +46515     
- Partials       190     3131     +2941     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cannon-go-tests-32	?
cannon-go-tests-64	?
contracts-bedrock-tests	?

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ptance-tests/tests/interop/interop_test_helpers.go	13.25% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 1154 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[pcw109550]

Closing this PR because this cannot be implemented against kt-devnet, where it does not support builder support(directly calling execution client's core.ApplyTransaction)

This test will be likely implemented using the action test DSL.