Miners handle signers block responses from the stacker db instance

[jferrant]

Description

This is the first stab at miners handling stacker db events from the signers. Progress beyond this point is blocked by the .signers pox 4 contract combined with the ability for signers to broadcast their aggregate keys.

Applicable issues

• PARTIALLY fixes [Nakamoto] Miner handles block responses from signers stackerdb instance #4265

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

A more complete solution would directly use the event observer trait (avoiding the use of the http server), but for an initial attempt, I just directly access the stacker db instance of the miner. As I am semi blocked, I might try making this change now. However review would be good anyway as this logic will not change much.

Next steps would be to actually append the block when we have .signers / aggregate key correctly set

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 195 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (86e3c26) 82.83% compared to head (20f2e0e) 82.60%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
testnet/stacks-node/src/nakamoto_node/miner.rs	4.47%	128 Missing ⚠️
libsigner/src/messages.rs	94.33%	48 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/stackerdb/db.rs	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4281      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.83%   82.60%   -0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         442      443       +1     
  Lines      314970   315904     +934     
==========================================
+ Hits       260898   260963      +65     
- Misses      54072    54941     +869     

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

[xoloki]

It would be nice to get rid of some of the expect calls, but they were already present so not a blocker for this PR

[jferrant]

It would be nice to get rid of some of the expect calls, but they were already present so not a blocker for this PR

Fixed in #4294

[kantai]

This looks mostly good to me -- I just have a couple comments about u8 enums, and a request on the changes in the miner thread.

[jcnelson]

Just one question about whether or not rejection thresholds should be configurable, but otherwise LGTM.

Before merging, please implement extension traits for wsts types and then implement StacksMessageCodec for those.