chore: add solidity formatter

[enitrat]

Time spent on this PR: 0.5h

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Build related changes
• Documentation content changes
• Other (please describe):

What is the current behavior?

Resolves #1244

What is the new behavior?

---

This change is 

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.40%. Comparing base (74ea1ee) to head (abcc68d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1247      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.47%   65.40%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          49       49              
  Lines        8281     8281              
==========================================
- Hits         5422     5416       -6     
- Misses       2859     2865       +6     

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

[obatirou]

Realizing that some external contracts are copy/pasted for tests in the src directory, solmate and uniswapV2 among others, and this PR change their code. It should be avoided if possible.
A new issue should be created to import those as dependencies in forge to avoid formatting those contracts or introducing regressions accidentally. Maybe even do this before introducing the formatter ?
Not sure what are the implication of this and what impact it would have on how the tests are constructed with python if imported with forge.

One solution in the meantime to avoid applying the forge fmt to them is to use the ignore for forge fmt.
If those contracts are kept copy / paste in the end, a commit hash of original repo should be associated to track them if possible.

[ClementWalter]

@enitrat should we just ignore or upgrade to have these files as submodule?
I suggest

1. ignore and merge this
2. create an issue to have submodules

[enitrat]

Let's go with 1. as this is low priority and impact

[enitrat]

@obatirou did you find any info on why uint -> uint256 ended up making the test fail?

[obatirou]

@obatirou did you find any info on why uint -> uint256 ended up making the test fail?

Unfortunately no, will try again this week