test: add unit tests for crosschain evm hooks

[kingpinXD]

Description

Add unit tests for EVM hooks.

Closes: #1759

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Include instructions and any relevant details so others can reproduce.

• Tested CCTX in localnet
• Tested in development environment
• Go unit tests
• Go integration tests
• Tested via GitHub Actions

Checklist:

• I have added unit tests that prove my fix feature works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 39.80%. Comparing base (01526a5) to head (8e1c2f0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1787      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    38.41%   39.80%   +1.39%     
===========================================
  Files          206      206              
  Lines        12584    12586       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits          4834     5010     +176     
+ Misses        7362     7181     -181     
- Partials       388      395       +7     

Files	Coverage Δ
x/crosschain/keeper/evm_hooks.go	85.78% <100.00%> (+77.06%)	⬆️
x/crosschain/keeper/gas_payment.go	79.56% <0.00%> (+3.22%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[lumtis]

Looking good so far!

[lumtis]

@kingpinXD this addresses this one right? #1759

[lumtis]

Looks good, some comment on the formatting

[github-actions]

!!!WARNING!!!
nosec detected in the following files: e2e/e2etests/e2etests.go

Be very careful about using #nosec in code. It can be a quick way to suppress security warnings and move forward with development, it should be employed with caution. Suppressing warnings with #nosec can hide potentially serious vulnerabilities. Only use #nosec when you're absolutely certain that the security issue is either a false positive or has been mitigated in another way.

Only suppress a single rule (or a specific set of rules) within a section of code, while continuing to scan for other problems. To do this, you can list the rule(s) to be suppressed within the #nosec annotation, e.g: /* #nosec G401 */ or //#nosec G201 G202 G203
Broad #nosec annotations should be avoided, as they can hide other vulnerabilities. The CI will block you from merging this PR until you remove #nosec annotations that do not target specific rules.

Pay extra attention to the way #nosec is being used in the files listed above.

[lumtis]

Looks good to me outside of the test failure.

[skosito]

looks good, just couple small comments