Add contract global state in VM

[dr-orlovsky]

This is WIP on adding contract state (not just operation state, but whole contract state) to the VM required for https://github.com/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/201

It seems like this will require refactoring of the validation workflow, since now we must evaluate the contract state not in stdlib, but right during the validation procedure itself...

I think it will be nice to postpone this until v0.12

NB: this is WIP since the global state for the contract IS NOT COMPUTED, i.e. validator always sees an empty contract state.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 18 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 15.4%. Comparing base (52e9dcb) to head (7472d06). Report is 38 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/validation/validator.rs	0.0%	9 Missing :warning:
src/validation/logic.rs	0.0%	5 Missing :warning:
src/vm/op_contract.rs	0.0%	3 Missing :warning:
src/vm/runtime.rs	0.0%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #208 +/- ## ======================================== - Coverage 16.8% 15.4% -1.3% ======================================== Files 32 33 +1 Lines 3896 4175 +279 ======================================== - Hits 653 644 -9 - Misses 3243 3531 +288 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/208/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=RGB-WG) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [rust](https://app.codecov.io/gh/RGB-WG/rgb-core/pull/208/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=RGB-WG) | `15.4% <0.0%> (-1.3%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=RGB-WG#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dr-orlovsky]

@crisdut well, the whole idea is to merge this PR after v0.11 release (i.e. in v0.12), while we need the refactored opcodes in v0.11, thus your PR can't be based on this one

[cymqqqq]

@crisdut well, the whole idea is to merge this PR after v0.11 release (i.e. in v0.12), while we need the refactored opcodes in v0.11, thus your PR can't be based on this one

Do you mean refactor the common opcodes in the aluvm or the contract-level opcodes in the rgb-core vm?

[crisdut]

@crisdut well, the whole idea is to merge this PR after v0.11 release (i.e. in v0.12), while we need the refactored opcodes in v0.11, thus your PR can't be based on this one

Do you mean refactor the common opcodes in the aluvm or the contract-level opcodes in the rgb-core vm?

He was referring to the average contract-level opcodes in the RGB, because this PR is about state verifications on the "current state" of the contract.

[cymqqqq]

Yes, I agree with you, we need to refactor the contract-level opcodes, and then maybe there is a lack of the other state types.

[dr-orlovsky]

Closing in favor of #264