chore!: wrap subscriptions in promise

[nedsalk]

Summary

I moved FuelGraphqlSubcriber instantiation to be async as a preparatory step for #2936. I tried introducing the solution for that issue in #2962, commit 8051113, but I wasn't happy with the solution so I reverted it and created this to give myself room to figure out a solution.

This change is necessary for the usage of submitAndAwait endpoint because the transaction can fail when submitted, but the failure isn't manifested until a call to the FuelGraphqlSubscriber.next method is done. With this async instantiation, the subscription can be made to fail before the actual subscription iterator is returned. I will add this failure handling in a subsequent PR that will tackle #2936, after I sync with the fuel-core team. We currently aren't using submitAndAwait anywhere so it's not a problem to leave it unhandled as-is.

Breaking Changes

// before
const subscription = provider.operations.statusChange({ transactionId });
for await (const response of subscription) { ... }

const submittedTxSubscription = this.operations.submitAndAwait({ encodedTransaction: '0x' });

// after
const subscription = await provider.operations.statusChange({ transactionId });
for await (const response of subscription) { ... }

const submittedTxSubscription = await this.operations.submitAndAwait({ encodedTransaction: '0x' });

Checklist

• All changes are covered by tests (or not applicable)
• All changes are documented (or not applicable)
• I reviewed the entire PR myself (preferably, on GH UI)
• I described all Breaking Changes (or there's none)

[petertonysmith94]

May be worth adding submitAndAwait to the breaking changes (to be thorough):

// Before
this.operations.submitAndAwait({ encodedTransaction: '0x' })

// After
await this.operations.submitAndAwait({ encodedTransaction: '0x' })

LGTM though, nice one!

[arboleya]

I tried introducing the solution for that issue in #2962, commit 8051113, but I reverted it afterwards because it caused issues.

How this reads: We can't merge #2962 and #2963 together, or we'll have issues.

[nedsalk]

@arboleya I updated the description.

It's not that we'll have issues by implementing both #2936 and #2962 together but that my solution for #2936 was naive so I reverted it. I actually made it work locally and all the tests were passing but when it came to the CI it started failing because the CI machine is slower and I was doing some sleep(x) tricks which just failed in the CI because the chosen x was not enough. It was generally a bad take so I just reverted it and created this PR in preparation to allow myself more time to figure out the correct solution.

[github-actions]

Coverage Report:

Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
79.18%(-0.01%)	71.45%(+0.02%)	77.31%(+0%)	79.31%(-0.01%)

Changed Files:

Ok	File (✨=New File)	Lines	Branches	Functions	Statements
🔴	packages/account/src/providers/transaction-request/transaction-request.ts	88.48% (+0%)	79.71% (+1.45%)	84% (+0%)	88.73% (+0%)