fix: contracts/gibberish.py nayduck test

[pugachAG]

Fixed by making nodes track all shards.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.08%. Comparing base (7befdbd) to head (efa7914).
Report is 13 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11340      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.04%   71.08%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         782      783       +1     
  Lines      156618   156875     +257     
  Branches   156618   156875     +257     
==========================================
+ Hits       111264   111520     +256     
+ Misses      40533    40521      -12     
- Partials     4821     4834      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility	0.24% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
db-migration	0.24% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
genesis-check	1.39% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration-tests	37.13% <ø> (-0.07%)	⬇️
linux	68.80% <ø> (-0.12%)	⬇️
linux-nightly	70.53% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
macos	52.24% <ø> (-0.08%)	⬇️
pytests	1.61% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
sanity-checks	1.40% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	65.51% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
upgradability	0.29% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Longarithm]

"tracked_shards": [0]

Side note: maybe we'll have to change it in all nayduck tests once subsets of tracked shards will be supported.

[wacban]

LGTM, but I wonder if we should be moving in the opposite direction since in SV the default will be single shard tracking. Let's merge as is but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[pugachAG]

@Longarithm @wacban
I agree that it would be nice to adjust nayduck tests to only track a necessary subset of shard, but I suggest we do that as separate effort.