Assess removal of ruff's Ignored Rules

[marioevz]

Related to ethereum/execution-specs#1403

execution-spec-tests Specific Ignored Rules

Rule	Description	Notes
C901	Function is too complex	Complexity* handled differently
A005	Builtin shadowing	execution-spec-tests specific
C420	Unnecessary comprehension	execution-spec-tests specific

Regarding complexity: This is configured to 7 in EELS, it's the default in EEST. 7 is fine :)

We should try removing these ignored rules from ruff and estimate the time it takes to enhance the code to comply with these rules.

[felix314159]

Mapping of rules to amount of errors we would get with them enabled:

• C901 -> 61 errors
  • IMO: We should not enable this rule for now.. It requires fundamental logic-changes in more than 50 functions (the rule does not like stuff like nested if statements etc .. All these logic-changes should be tackled after a successful weld when there is free time for stuff that could break our framework
• A005 -> 10 errors, #2133
  • This is about us choosing names that shadow python stdlib. This has hurt us in the past and I didn't know that there is a rule to detect this. IMO 100% should be enabled, I will fix this with a follow-up PR. It is error-prone too though, so requires a good review
  • Edit: Done, please review and merge the linked PR
• C420 -> 18 fixable errors for newish ruff version (0 errors for older ruff versions like e.g. 0.9.6), #2146
  • Let's fix the few issues and enable it
  • Edit: Done, please review and merge the linked PR