refactor(core): collect runs batched checks

[aasseman]

The checks are specifically made to check the receipts that are to be aggregated only in their own context. Helps for uniqueness checks for example, where we avoid calling the storage backend and only check that the collected receipts are unique.

In terms of the public API, this should be a cleaner solution than #179 . The implementation itself is not super clean though. A deeper refactor of tap_core may help make this a bit less hacky.

[github-actions[bot]]

🤖 Cargo Audit Report 🤖

(Empty means OK! 👍)

[github-actions[bot]]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6673349985

• 125 of 128 (97.66%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+2.1%) to 82.176%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
tap_core/src/tap_receipt/receipt_auditor.rs	102	105	97.14%
<!--	Total:	125	128	97.66%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 6500762705:	2.1%
Covered Lines:	1231
Relevant Lines:	1498

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions[bot]]

🤖 Cargo Audit Report 🤖

(Empty means OK! 👍)

[ColePBryan]

What do you think about proxying the batch call through received receipts class? That way, we can ensure the state remains owned by received receipt. I am worried that we will get difficult bugs popping up as soon as we start requiring the state to be managed outside the state owner. I think the code would look something like this:

impl ReceivedReceipt {
...
    pub async fn perform_batch_checks<CA: EscrowAdapter, RCA: ReceiptChecksAdapter>(
        batch: &mut [Self],
        check: &ReceiptCheck,
        receipt_auditor: &ReceiptAuditor<CA, RCA>,
    ) -> crate::Result<()> {
        receipt_auditor
            .check_batch(check, batch)
            .await?;
        for receipt in batch {
            receipt.update_state();
        }
        Ok(())
    }
...
}

Additionally, we could return the list of results and have ReceivedReceipt do the updating as well, mainly to keep the approach consistent.

    pub async fn perform_batch_checks<CA: EscrowAdapter, RCA: ReceiptChecksAdapter>(
        batch: &mut [Self],
        check: &ReceiptCheck,
        receipt_auditor: &ReceiptAuditor<CA, RCA>,
    ) -> crate::Result<()> {
        results = receipt_auditor
            .check_batch(check, batch)
            .await?;
        for (receipt,result) in batch.iter_mut().zip(results) {
            receipt.update_check(check, result);
            receipt.update_state();
        }
        ok(())
    }

Assuming the returned list of results are in the same order as the receipts provided. (edited)

[aasseman]

I reverted a commit that shouldn't be in this PR, and applied your suggestion.

[github-actions[bot]]

🤖 Cargo Audit Report 🤖

(Empty means OK! 👍)

[github-actions[bot]]

🤖 Cargo Audit Report 🤖

(Empty means OK! 👍)