fix(cheatcodes): use make_acc_non_empty in mockCalls_1Call for consistency

[aganisgash]

All other mock functions use make_acc_non_empty to etch a single byte onto empty accounts, which prevents Solidity's extcodesize check from failing when mocking calls to addresses without existing bytecode.

Makes mockCalls_1Call consistent with the other mock cheatcodes and ensures mocked calls work correctly in all scenarios.

[zerosnacks]

This makes sense to me, I am not sure why this was treated as a special case

For context:

foundry/crates/cheatcodes/src/evm/mock.rs

Lines 211 to 223 in 6e6341b

	// Etches a single byte onto the account if it is empty to circumvent the `extcodesize`
	// check Solidity might perform.
	fn make_acc_non_empty(callee: &Address, ecx: &mut CheatsCtxt) -> Result {
	let acc = ecx.journaled_state.load_account(*callee)?;
	let empty_bytecode = acc.info.code.as_ref().is_none_or(Bytecode::is_empty);
	if empty_bytecode {
	let code = Bytecode::new_raw(Bytes::from_static(&[0u8]));
	ecx.journaled_state.set_code(*callee, code);
	}
	Ok(Default::default())
	}

[aganisgash]

This makes sense to me, I am not sure why this was treated as a special case

For context:

foundry/crates/cheatcodes/src/evm/mock.rs

Lines 211 to 223 in 6e6341b

	// Etches a single byte onto the account if it is empty to circumvent the `extcodesize`
	// check Solidity might perform.
	fn make_acc_non_empty(callee: &Address, ecx: &mut CheatsCtxt) -> Result {
	let acc = ecx.journaled_state.load_account(*callee)?;
	let empty_bytecode = acc.info.code.as_ref().is_none_or(Bytecode::is_empty);
	if empty_bytecode {
	let code = Bytecode::new_raw(Bytes::from_static(&[0u8]));
	ecx.journaled_state.set_code(*callee, code);
	}
	Ok(Default::default())
	}

Maybe just a copy-paste oversight. All the other mock functions follow the same pattern with make_acc_non_empty, so this one likely got missed when the code was initially written.

[grandizzy]

I think we want a sig to bypass that at some point but subject to discussion #10703 (comment)

pending discussion

[grandizzy]

I think that's fine but could be breaking change for some projects assuming that will revert