Feat/stackerdb miners contract

[jcnelson]

Implements #4018, with the caveats listed in #4018 (namely, the .miners StackerDBConfig structure must be synthesized directly from chainstate due to a chicken-and-egg problem of needing .miners to reflect the latest sortition state before any blocks have been processed).

The code here is mostly complete and has some minimal unit tests. The following features need to be added:

• The Nakamoto node needs to be upgraded to write its proposed block to the .miners contract. There's already a helper method in NakamotoBlockBuilder that will generate the chunk.

The following test coverage needs to be added:

• A TestPeer-based unit test to verify that the StackerDBConfig for .miners is correctly synthesized after processing each Bitcoin block

• See test_make_miners_stackerdb_config

• A TestPeer-based unit test to verify that two nodes can be instantiated, which both track .miners, and a StackerDBChunkData post to one will show up on the other (i.e. this shows that StackerDB can propagate NakamotoBlocks for miners)

• See miner_writes_proposed_block_to_stackerdb. Note this test does not have two nodes tracking miners but simply uses a stackerdb session to check that the block is found as expected in the appropriate slot. Does not bother to test stacker db propogation which is tested in other tests already. It also it not TestPeer based as the propose nakamoto block logic is found only within the Relayer for the neon node itself so really should be an integration test.

• A Nakamoto integration test to ensure that the miner propagates the (unsigned) NakamotoBlock to the .miners contract

• See above point.
  • Optional (can be a separate PR): test that the stacks signer receives the NakamotoBlock: will be done in another PR once stacks signer begins to process proposed blocks

As discussed earlier, I'm handing this off to @jferrant so I can focus on building out the Nakamoto p2p layer.

Closes #4018
Closes #3931

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 218 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (2285877) 83.01% compared to head (3cb02e0) 54.82%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
testnet/stacks-node/src/config.rs	60.38%	164 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/chat.rs	53.48%	20 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/stackerdb/mod.rs	81.08%	14 Missing ⚠️
testnet/stacks-node/src/nakamoto_node/miner.rs	79.48%	8 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/chainstate/nakamoto/mod.rs	96.47%	3 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/stackerdb/tests/sync.rs	50.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
testnet/stacks-node/src/neon_node.rs	89.47%	2 Missing ⚠️
...net/stacks-node/src/tests/nakamoto_integrations.rs	98.44%	2 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/chainstate/nakamoto/miner.rs	95.65%	1 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/stackerdb/tests/config.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4188       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   83.01%   54.82%   -28.20%     
===========================================
  Files         430      430               
  Lines      305627   304081     -1546     
===========================================
- Hits       253730   166699    -87031     
- Misses      51897   137382    +85485     

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

[kantai]

This mostly LGTM, just a few comments and questions.

[jcnelson]

This overall LGTM. Thanks for taking it over @jferrant! Just a couple comments need to be addressed and then I'll approve.

[kantai]

Overall, LGTM, I just have one unresolved comment about the .miners contract. It seems like it doesn't actually need to exist, and would prefer to just remove it in that case.

[jcnelson]

Well, since I'm the one who opened it, I can't approve it, but LGTM. Thanks for carrying this over the finish line @jferrant! Just a couple comments to address before merging 🙏

[kantai]

LGTM, appreciate you for getting this across the line @jferrant!

[blockstack-devops]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.