Check against sstore block availability when processing eth_getLogs

[udpatil]

Describe your changes and provide context

This checks against the latest available version for receiptStore so that we can properly error on eth_getLogs if/when we haven't yet flushed one or more of the blocks within the queried range.

Testing performed to validate your change

Unit tests

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 57.14286% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 27.11%. Comparing base (5a15103) to head (a9ab992).
⚠️ Report is 634 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
evmrpc/filter.go	52.63%	6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (57.14%) is below the target coverage (70.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (27.11%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           main    #2433       +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage      0   27.11%   +27.11%     
=========================================
  Files         0     1464     +1464     
  Lines         0   144423   +144423     
=========================================
+ Hits          0    39154    +39154     
- Misses        0   101905   +101905     
- Partials      0     3364     +3364     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
x/evm/keeper/receipt.go	74.22% <100.00%> (ø)
evmrpc/filter.go	70.99% <52.63%> (ø)

... and 1462 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[stevenlanders]

(once tests are green)

[yzang2019]

Currently if it returns an error, we should probably fall back to the previous approach to assume latestVersion=latestblock

[github-actions]

We truly appreciate your contribution and the time you’ve invested in this PR.
Before we can merge it, we’d love your help addressing the remaining feedback or sharing your perspective.
If we don’t hear back within 2 day(s), this PR will close automatically — but don’t worry, you can reopen it anytime when you’re ready to continue.

[github-actions]

This PR is being closed due to inactivity, but we want to acknowledge and thank you for the effort you’ve put in.
Please feel free to reopen it whenever you’re ready to pick it back up.