test: new txtar test for non-regression

[moul]

I don't think we need to merge this pull request, but I wanted to open it to check a few points:

• We have three main folders containing txtar files. Is there a current contributing guideline explaining when to use one folder over another?
• Is this test currently only testable using txtar, or is there a better approach?

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 54.62%. Comparing base (e2e0611) to head (a733c02). Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #2343 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 54.62% 54.62% ======================================= Files 581 581 Lines 77954 77954 ======================================= Hits 42583 42583 Misses 32193 32193 Partials 3178 3178 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/gnolang/gno/pull/2343/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=gnolang) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [gno.land](https://app.codecov.io/gh/gnolang/gno/pull/2343/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=gnolang) | `61.86% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=gnolang#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[deelawn]

We have this issue as well to do part of this #2253