feat: add no-edge-process flag to node init

[gruberb]

Description

There are use cases for which we don't rely on polygon-edge. If we don't need it, we can run node up --no-edge-process. However, when creating a new config setup, we always assume polygon-edge is present. In the case of a solo-sequencer, we want to supply a fixed validator.key for example, and don't need or want polygon-edge in the process.

Fixes # (issue)

New feature

Adding a --no-edge-process flag to node init.

PR Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added or updated tests that comprehensively prove my change is effective or that my feature works

[dvdplm]

LGTM

I do think that the API would have been cleaner if we had flipped the logic, to have --with-edge rather than --no-something-something. That choice was taken way back though and is a bit messy to revert so not going to complain about it now.

Another tak-shave-y consideration is naming: perhaps it would have been wise to avoid naming "Edge" and instead pick something generic, like chain-client or subnet-node or something that reflects the role it plays in topos, rather than naming a specific implementation of evm chain.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (60f873c) 62.87% compared to head (c9f61a8) 62.95%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/topos/src/components/node/commands/init.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #401      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.87%   62.95%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         220      220              
  Lines       11760    11788      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         7394     7421      +27     
- Misses       4366     4367       +1     

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

[gruberb]

Another tak-shave-y consideration is naming: perhaps it would have been wise to avoid naming "Edge" and instead pick something generic, like chain-client or subnet-node or something that reflects the role it plays in topos, rather than naming a specific implementation of evm chain.

Agree. But part of me also thinks that we can very explicit of what this command does (we just have edge for now, and probably for a longer time?). So once this is changing, we can adapt the naming again. I rather be precise, and change it for when we want to expand.