Updates batch bridge transactions to also execute arbitrary calls

[joshuahannan]

Works towards onflow/fcl-js#2340 and onflow/fcl-js#2339

Description

Updates the batch bridge to EVM transaction to all take an arbitrary amount of calldata so that the caller can do any EVM calls in the same transaction.

I wanted to just update the existing transaction so that we don't have to copy code and to make it a little easier to illustrate to developers the ability to do many things in one atomic transaction.

---

For contributor use:

• Targeted PR against flip-318 branch
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the standards mentioned here.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.46%. Comparing base (31a091f) to head (597473b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           flip-318     #190   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     81.46%   81.46%           
=========================================
  Files            24       24           
  Lines          1597     1597           
=========================================
  Hits           1301     1301           
  Misses          296      296           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[joshuahannan]

@sisyphusSmiling For now I just updated the existing transaction so we don't have to copy code and to make it a little easier to illustrate to developers the ability to do many things in one atomic transaction, but if you think that it should be a separate transaction, I'm totally fine with that and can make a new one.

Also how, do you feel about me making the same changes to the fungible token transaction?

[jribbink]

Looks good to me, thank you! This will work perfectly for my purposes

[joshuahannan]

@jribbink @sisyphusSmiling I added a transaction for fungible tokens also and made sure each transaction was new instead of modifying the existing transaction. Let me know if you need any other changes!

[sisyphusSmiling]

I can see the UFix64 param value being an issue for programmatic value transfer due to the relative restriction on decimal precision. IMO the param type should be updated but might require changes to the types in the upstream hook.