Add Orchard to transaction builder

[nuttycom]

Subsumes #583

[nuttycom]

utACK 4fbdd64

[AloeareV]

Ah, no more transaction::components::orchard::builder mod, with all that MaybeOrchard stuff... It means that a builder now has the orchard-related methods even if it's not provided with an orchard anchor, which is now a runtime error when you try to call them with no anchor...but on the other hand, it's makes the implementation so much cleaner.

It's a tradeoff, but one that I'm fine with! The other change I've noticed is assert_matches, which just makes more sense than Eqable errors

[nuttycom]

Ah, no more transaction::components::orchard::builder mod, with all that MaybeOrchard stuff... It means that a builder now has the orchard-related methods even if it's not provided with an orchard anchor, which is now a runtime error when you try to call them with no anchor...but on the other hand, it's makes the implementation so much cleaner.

Not only that, there was already a runtime error that had to be raised if NU5 wasn't active, and so statically making those methods unavailable strictly increased the space of types that implementations had to deal with without reducing the number of possible runtime errors at all. So overall, the MaybeOrchard stuff wasn't paying its way.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 38.15% and project coverage change: -0.22 ⚠️

Comparison is base (06a7849) 69.97% compared to head (1b4017e) 69.76%.

❗ Current head 1b4017e differs from pull request most recent head 7fe02f0. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7fe02f0 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #863      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.97%   69.76%   -0.22%     
==========================================
  Files         124      124              
  Lines       11551    11618      +67     
==========================================
+ Hits         8083     8105      +22     
- Misses       3468     3513      +45     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
zcash_client_backend/src/fees/fixed.rs	70.14% <ø> (ø)
zcash_client_backend/src/fees/zip317.rs	80.58% <ø> (ø)
zcash_client_backend/src/keys.rs	88.55% <ø> (ø)
zcash_extensions/src/transparent/demo.rs	76.62% <ø> (ø)
zcash_primitives/src/consensus.rs	49.28% <ø> (ø)
...h_primitives/src/transaction/components/orchard.rs	84.39% <ø> (ø)
zcash_primitives/src/transaction/fees/fixed.rs	87.50% <ø> (ø)
zcash_primitives/src/transaction/mod.rs	78.13% <ø> (ø)
zcash_primitives/src/transaction/builder.rs	61.53% <35.61%> (-13.31%)	⬇️
zcash_client_backend/src/data_api/wallet.rs	87.01% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[str4d]

utACK