aac: update epoch list configuration from epoch20

[federico-stacks]

Description

This PR is mainly a wrap-up of what we discussed during our last internal sync. It introduce a very small change concerning the epoch list creation, taking into account epoch 2.X.

Here a sum-up of the points we discussed:

• The epoch list should be configured starting from Epoch 2.0.
• We can safely use a +1 strategy to move between Epoch 2.X, since we plan to refactor the Test Harness so that all test transactions for Epoch 2.X fit within a single block
• The only transactions we need to execute in Epoch 2.X are contract deployments.
• There is no immediate need to make the epoch list “dynamic” (in terms of burn height configuration) as a test input for now. The optional epoch-related parameters already provided by contract_deploy_consensus_test! and contract_call_consensus_test! macros should be sufficient.

If this reasoning is correct, considering the small change introduced in this PR would we prefer to integrate it directly into #6608 instead?
Otherwise, I’m happy to adjust and implement any missing pieces based on your feedback.

Applicable issues

• fixes AAC: Add epoch list support to test input #6567

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

• Test coverage for new or modified code paths
• Changelog is updated
• Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
• New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.65217% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.67%. Comparing base (a7d73af) to head (a5ae88e).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	95.65%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6611      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    79.88%   80.67%   +0.78%     
===========================================
  Files          571      571              
  Lines       351586   351590       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits        280856   283634    +2778     
+ Misses       70730    67956    -2774     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	94.70% <95.65%> (-0.14%)	⬇️

... and 81 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a7d73af...a5ae88e. Read the comment docs.

🚀 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.

[federico-stacks]

@jacinta-stacks do we want to merge this PR in the end, instead of using it just as reference for your pr (#6619)?

Not problem on my side if it is the case. Just let me know, so I can fix the going conflicts.