feat(supervisor/storage): implemented rewinder for log storage

[sadiq1971]

Closes #1837

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.41667% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.2%. Comparing base (9b9a9d3) to head (a8b2dbd).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/supervisor/storage/src/chaindb.rs	0.0%	5 Missing ⚠️
...s/supervisor/storage/src/providers/log_provider.rs	95.3%	2 Missing ⚠️

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[itschaindev]

lgtm. i'll create another ticket in re-org tracker to trigger this so that we don't miss it.

[dhyaniarun1993]

Also, I think it would be better to perform rewinding based blockID instead of just block number.

[dhyaniarun1993]

I guess rewind_to name makes more sense considering we are dealing with the append only logging.

[sadiq1971]

Also, I think it would be better to perform rewinding based blockID instead of just block number.

I don't think we will need hash matching required here in any case

[sadiq1971]

Also, I think it would be better to perform rewinding based blockID instead of just block number.

I don't think we will need hash matching required here in any case

But let's do step by step. Will do the change whenever we need it

[dhyaniarun1993]

Also, I think it would be better to perform rewinding based blockID instead of just block number.

I don't think we will need hash matching required here in any case

But let's do step by step. Will do the change whenever we need it

Okay. We can do this later. But I think we might need this as an additional consistency check.

[sadiq1971]

Also, I think it would be better to perform rewinding based blockID instead of just block number.

I don't think we will need hash matching required here in any case

But let's do step by step. Will do the change whenever we need it

Okay. We can do this later. But I think we might need this as an additional consistency check.

Yes. Specially if we do the rewinding part by part and not in one tx.