Added signed header verification

[Manav-Aggarwal]

Overview

Resolves: #1027, Resolves: #1048

Checklist

• New and updated code has appropriate documentation
• New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
• Required CI checks are passing
• Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates
• Linked issues closed with keywords

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 72.82% and project coverage change: +1.38 🎉

Comparison is base (4c951e4) 54.48% compared to head (c7e9725) 55.86%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1026 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 54.48% 55.86% +1.38% 
==========================================
Files 63 63 Lines 6655 6759 +104 ==========================================
+ Hits 3626 3776 +150 + Misses 2638 2573 -65 - Partials 391 410 +19 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
types/signed_header.go	44.06% <46.80%> (+44.06%)	⬆️
types/block.go	42.42% <68.29%> (+42.42%)	⬆️
types/test_utils.go	84.21% <84.21%> (ø)
da/test/da_test_helpers.go	78.18% <100.00%> (-2.47%)	⬇️
node/full_client.go	46.51% <100.00%> (ø)
state/executor.go	50.00% <100.00%> (-0.80%)	⬇️
store/test_helpers.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
types/header.go	32.00% <100.00%> (+32.00%)	⬆️

... and 2 files 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.

[nashqueue]

Another thing that we should consider is that we have 2 options for verifying a header. Either if it is adjacent, we check it through the last hash etc. OR if it is in the future, we can assume it is correct because the Sequencer signed it and can be fraud proven later.

[Manav-Aggarwal]

Another thing that we should consider is that we have 2 options for verifying a header. Either if it is adjacent, we check it through the last hash etc. OR if it is in the future, we can assume it is correct because the Sequencer signed it and can be fraud proven later.

We should discuss this and track it in an issue.

[nashqueue]

LGTM Last point in a non-blocking refactor and can be done in a follow up

[MSevey]

some minor edits, but then will be good

[Manav-Aggarwal]

New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - this is false. Code is not covered by unit tests at all. I see that there is a subtask in #1031, but IMO creating unit tests should not be separated from implementation.

Added header verification tests as well.

[MSevey]

LGTM, all my comments can be follow ups.

[nashqueue]

Thank you! LGTM, You can resolve conversations when followups are created

[tzdybal]

LGTM