Merge astar-frame

[shaunxw]

Pull Request Summary

"The Merge"

• Codewise, everything is kept as it is. Except that I noticed pallet-precompile-dapps-staking crate naming is not consistent with other precompiles, so I changed it to pallet-evm-precompile-dapps-staking.
• The CI workflows in astar-frame is also merged into astar workflows.
• Added a CI workflow feature: cancel previous workflow runs on new PR push.

If you have pending PR in astar-frame, please migrate it to astar repo after this one is merged. (Sorry for the inconvenience)

Check list

• added or updated unit tests
• updated Astar official documentation
• added OnRuntimeUpgrade hook for precompile revert code registration
• updated spec version
• updated semver

[shaunxw]

The CI checks look all passed, but actually the tests-and-coverage task is skipped. Let me try to fix it.

[github-actions]

Package	Line Rate	Branch Rate	Health
pallets/custom-signatures/src	52%	0%	➖
precompiles/sr25519/src	79%	0%	➖
precompiles/dapps-staking/src	93%	0%	✔
precompiles/xvm/src	61%	0%	➖
precompiles/assets-erc20/src	76%	0%	➖
chain-extensions/types/assets/src	0%	0%	❌
pallets/block-reward/src	85%	0%	✔
precompiles/utils/macro/src	0%	0%	❌
chain-extensions/types/xvm/src	0%	0%	❌
chain-extensions/dapps-staking/src	0%	0%	❌
precompiles/xcm/src	85%	0%	✔
chain-extensions/pallet-assets/src	0%	0%	❌
pallets/pallet-xvm/src	5%	0%	❌
chain-extensions/xvm/src	0%	0%	❌
pallets/collator-selection/src	70%	0%	➖
pallets/dapps-staking/src	81%	0%	✔
chain-extensions/types/dapps-staking/src	0%	0%	❌
pallets/dapps-staking/src/pallet	87%	0%	✔
pallets/pallet-xvm/src/pallet	8%	0%	❌
pallets/xc-asset-config/src	54%	0%	➖
precompiles/substrate-ecdsa/src	78%	0%	➖
pallets/contracts-migration/src	0%	0%	❌
pallets/pallet-xcm/src	54%	0%	➖
precompiles/utils/src	69%	0%	➖
primitives/xcm/src	70%	0%	➖
Summary	55% (2198 / 4005)	0% (0 / 0)	➖

Minimum allowed line rate is 50%

[shaunxw]

Code coverage CI is fixed.

Sometimes the clippy CI fails without any error, and re-run works. PR #954 has this same issue. My best guess is that the overall workflow run takes too long. IMO the CI time improvement can be done in another PR, probably using a self-host runner for time-consuming tasks.

[Dinonard]

LGTM

For the CI issue, let's follow-up with devops!

[ashutoshvarma]

LGTM