feat: add watched L1 subnet contract to /v2/info

[obycode]

Adds this field to the response:

"watch_contract": "ST1PQHQKV0RJXZFY1DGX8MNSNYVE3VGZJSRTPGZGM.subnet"

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #237 (eb43849) into master (54c653c) will increase coverage by 1.06%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head eb43849 differs from pull request most recent head 77c6625. Consider uploading reports for the commit 77c6625 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #237      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.19%   92.26%   +1.06%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines         284      336      +52     
==========================================
+ Hits          259      310      +51     
- Misses         25       26       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
core-contracts/contracts/helper/simple-ft.clar	75.00% <ø> (-1.48%)	⬇️
...contracts/contracts/helper/simple-nft-no-mint.clar	66.66% <ø> (ø)
core-contracts/contracts/helper/simple-nft.clar	73.33% <ø> (ø)
core-contracts/contracts/multi-miner.clar	97.05% <ø> (ø)
core-contracts/contracts/subnet.clar	94.96% <ø> (+0.81%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[obycode]

Also add RegisterAsset op. Track the asset registration from the L1 (register-new-(n)ft-contract) and trigger a corresponding call in the L2 subnet boot contract. This call also triggers an L2 event for observers. Additionally, the registered contracts are recorded in the contract, allowing calls to (n)ft-withdraw? to error out if the asset is not registered.

[obycode]

I'll look into these failures today.

[kantai]

These changes look good to me, but the register changes need some end-to-end testing -- I think the "happy path" is tested with the existing deposit + withdraw l1_observe_tests, but we should also test the "unhappy path" where a withdrawal is attempted from a non-registered contract.

[obycode]

we should also test the "unhappy path" where a withdrawal is attempted from a non-registered contract.

Thoughts on where that test should go? I could put it in l1_observer_test.rs, because it will be similar to those tests, but it won't be testing the l1 observer. Is there an existing good place for it?

[kantai]

we should also test the "unhappy path" where a withdrawal is attempted from a non-registered contract.

Thoughts on where that test should go? I could put it in l1_observer_test.rs, because it will be similar to those tests, but it won't be testing the l1 observer. Is there an existing good place for it?

l1_observer_test is probably the closest to good existing place. You could add a sibling module to tests::l1_observer_test like tests::l1_withdrawal which just imports the necessary utility methods, etc. from l1_observer_test.

[obycode]

The last commit looks unrelated, but it is just cleaning up a bunch of warnings that were annoying during the build/test process.

[obycode]

Ok @kantai, this is ready for a final review.

@zone117x please also take a look at the updated events and let me know if that will be okay for the API or if you request any changes.

[zone117x]

Thanks @obycode this is working as expected

[kantai]

LGTM!

You should make sure the new test module gets picked up by the test matrix step in github CI, though.

In .github/workflows/ci.yml, on step compute-layer-1-tests, it currently does:

          cargo test --workspace --bin=subnet-node -- l1_ --list --format=terse | sed -e 's/: test//g' | jq -ncR '{"test-name": [inputs]}' > test_names.json

to create a JSON struct listing the tests, but the cargo test filter l1_ is too restrictive for this. I think just changing that to l would work:

          cargo test --workspace --bin=subnet-node -- l --list --format=terse | sed -e 's/: test//g' | jq -ncR '{"test-name": [inputs]}' > test_names.json

[obycode]

Thanks @kantai - I made that CI change in the latest commit.

@zone117x I added the txid to the event as requested. Can you take one more look at that?