read-msg recoverable under some key

[jmcardon]

PR checklist:

• Test coverage for the proposed changes
• PR description contains example output from repl interaction or a snippet from unit test output

"Setting transaction data"
["DisablePact47"]
"Expect failure: success: read-integer fails on non-existent key"
"Expect failure: success: read-string fails on non-existent key"
"Expect failure: success: read-keyset fails on non-existent key"
"Expect failure: success: read-decimal fails on non-existent key"
"Expect failure: success: read-msg fails on non-existent key"
"Commit Tx 4"
"Begin Tx 5"
"Setting transaction data"
[]
"Expect: success: read-integer fails on non-existent key but is recoverable"
"Expect: success: read-string fails on non-existent key but is recoverable"
"Expect: success: read-keyset fails on non-existent key but is recoverable"
"Expect: success: read-decimal fails on non-existent key but is recoverable"
"Expect: success: read-msg fails on non-existent key but is recoverable"
"Commit Tx 5"

• Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog

Additionally, please justify why you should or should not do the following:

• Confirm replay/back compat
  Forked. Needs replay
• Benchmark regressions
  No point in this PR.

[sirlensalot]

Some comments via the new template:

PR description contains example output from repl interaction or a snippet from unit test output

Didn't see this in the description

Confirm replay/back compat
Forked. Does not need replay

This actually means it does need a replay as any fork could have a bug.

[jwiegley]

This looks very straightforward to me. Thank you for the tests!

[jmcardon]

Some comments via the new template:

PR description contains example output from repl interaction or a snippet from unit test output

Didn't see this in the description

Fixed, sorry I thought i pasted it

Confirm replay/back compat
Forked. Does not need replay

This actually means it does need a replay as any fork could have a bug.

Ah, oops. Yeah it is a semantic change

[emilypi]

Needs replay/justification to not replay + IT and I'll approve

[emilypi]

Optional suggestion:

Suggested change

	isExecutionFlagSet FlagDisablePact47 >>= \case
	True ->
	evalError' i $ "No such key in message: " <> pretty k
	False ->
	failTx' i $ "No such key in message: " <> pretty k
	ifExecutionFlagSet FlagDisablePact47
	(evalError' i $ "No such key in message: " <> pretty k)
	(failTx' i $ "No such key in message: " <> pretty k)

[jmcardon]

https://github.com/kadena-io/chainweb-node/actions/runs/4940160772/jobs/8831947170

Shallow replay passed.