WIP: add agglayer CLAIM note & bridging in functionality

[partylikeits1983]

Resolves: #1910 & #1900

Builds on top of #2023 (will rebase off agglayer branch once #2023 is merged)

Adds the following bridging in functionality:

User creates CLAIM network note, which is consumed by the agglayer bridge contract (agglayer::bridge_in component), which then creates a network MINT note. This MINT note is consumed by an agglayer faucet account, which mints the user requested note.

CLAIM -> agglayer::bridge_in -> MINT -> agglayer faucet -> P2ID note

This PR is still a work in progress.

[bobbinth]

User creates CLAIM network note, which is consumed by the agglayer bridge contract (agglayer::bridge_in component), which then creates a network MINT note. This MINT note is consumed by an agglayer faucet account, which mints the user requested note.

I actually imagined the flow differently:

• The CLAIM note would be consumed by the faucet (we'd have a variation of the faucet which would be something like AggLayerFungibleFaucet).
• The faucet would consume the CLAIM note in a network transaction.
  • As a part of this transaction, the faucet would make an FPI call to the AggLayer contract to verify the validity of the Global Exit Tree (GET) inclusion path.
  • Assuming the check passes, the faucet would issue a P2ID note. This would involve performing the relevant amount conversions, and maybe, trying to make sure that we don't issue the same P2ID note twice.

The main difference between this and your current approach is that we'd need just one network transaction here (to consume then CLAIM note), while in the current approach, two network transactions are needed (one to consume CLAIM and issue MINT note, and the other to consume the MINT note and issue a P2ID note.

But maybe there are advantages to doing it this way?

[partylikeits1983]

Closed in favor of #2188 due to changes in architectural design