added ics schemas to genesis

[aramikm]

Goal

The goal of this PR is

Related to #https://github.com/ProjectLibertyLabs/interoperable-context-service/issues/42

Discussion

• updated the rust version to 1.90
• Added genesis for ics local dev nodes
• Added a tool to upload ics schemas to paseo and mainnet

Example run

SUCCESS: ics.context-group-acl intent created with id of 16002
SUCCESS: ics.context-group-metadata intent created with id of 16003
SUCCESS: ics.public-key-key-agreement intent created with id of 16001
Map(3) {
  'ics.public-key-key-agreement' => 16001,
  'ics.context-group-acl' => 16002,
  'ics.context-group-metadata' => 16003
}
intentId 16001
intentId 16002
intentId 16003
schemaId = 16001
schemaId = 16002
schemaId = 16003

Checklist

• Spec version incremented?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pallets/capacity/src/lib.rs	95.39% <ø> (+6.79%)	⬆️
pallets/messages/src/migration/v3.rs	93.02% <100.00%> (ø)
pallets/msa/src/lib.rs	96.37% <ø> (+3.97%)	⬆️
pallets/msa/src/offchain_storage.rs	83.83% <100.00%> (+5.64%)	⬆️
pallets/stateful-storage/src/migration/v2.rs	92.44% <100.00%> (ø)
pallets/stateful-storage/src/types.rs	81.99% <100.00%> (+3.32%)	⬆️

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[aramikm]

not used

[aramikm]

updated due to 1.90 required linting guidelines

[JoeCap08055]

Looks great--one comment:

In the past, we've explicitly mirrored the SchemaIds from Mainnet onto Testnet by setting storage directly; then we set the max_schema_id on Testnet to 16000 so that any new schemas created won't interfere with the numeric ID space mirrored from Mainnet.

Do we want to continue this practice?
Or--since that practice was conceived before we had name resolution on-chain--do we no longer need it? Is there any advantage any longer to maintaining numeric ID parity between Testnet and Mainnet?

[aramikm]

Looks great--one comment:

In the past, we've explicitly mirrored the SchemaIds from Mainnet onto Testnet by setting storage directly; then we set the max_schema_id on Testnet to 16000 so that any new schemas created won't interfere with the numeric ID space mirrored from Mainnet.

Do we want to continue this practice? Or--since that practice was conceived before we had name resolution on-chain--do we no longer need it? Is there any advantage any longer to maintaining numeric ID parity between Testnet and Mainnet?

I think for now we can just create it as is using the script as is but after the release on mainnet and creation of those schemas on mainnet and getting their actual ids. We can always modify the testnet to reflect the mainnet in case we feel it's necessary. But I think having different ids should be fine since we usually handle it based on the environment.

[JoeCap08055]

Looks good!

[enddynayn]

great! 👍

[shannonwells]

Ship it