Add conway-specific certs to deposit/refunds

[aniketd]

Description

Closes #3696

I suspect that this implementation may be incorrect, because:

1. although we track RegDepositTxCert and UnRegDepositTxCert (in Conway.UTxO) separately from RegTxCert and UnRegTxCert (in Mary.UTxO) they could be considered essentially the same, because these could be mixed up submissions in the same Tx, and need to be calculated together in Conway?
2. with respect to deregistering, we have a RegDepositDelegTxCert that has no equivalent Un_ counterpart (as it does not need one), but then, the natural question to ask myself is, should this also be considered to be accounted for along with the group of certs being tracked in point 1?

In other words, should the deposit/refund calculation be the following:

produced =
  getSum @Int 
    (  foldMap'
        (  \case
            RegTxCert {} -> 1
            RegDepositTxCert {} -> 1
            RegDepositDelegTxCert {} -> 1
            _ -> 0
        )
        (txBody ^. certsTxBodyL)
    )
    <x> pp 
    ^. ppKeyDepositL

and

consumed = 
  let go accum@(!depositsInTx, !totalRefunds) = \case
        -- tracking registrations in the same tx
        RegTxCert c -> (Set.insert c depositsInTx, totalRefund)
        RegDepositTxCert c _ -> (Set.insert c depositsInTx, totalRefund)
        RegDepositDelegTxCert c _ _ -> (Set.insert c depositsInTx, totalRefund)
        -- cancelling out registrations in the same tx and refunding otherwise
        UnRegTxCert c
          | Set.member c depositsInTx -> (Set.delete c depositsInTx, totalRefund <+> pp ^. ppKeyDepositL)
          | Just deposit <- lookupKeyDeposit c -> (depositsInTx, totalRefund <+> deposit)
        UnRegDepositTxCert c _
          | Set.member c depositsInTx -> (Set.delete c depositsInTx, totalRefund <+> pp ^. ppKeyDepositL)
          | Just deposit <- lookupKeyDeposit c -> (depositsInTx, totalRefund <+> deposit)
   in snd $ foldl' go (Set.empty, Coin 0) $ txBody ^. certsTxBodyL

unified in conway and not partially separated out (for reuse) in shelleyProducedValue and getConsumedMaryValue?

Let me know what you guys think!

Checklist

• Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
• New tests are added if needed and existing tests are updated
• When applicable, versions are updated in .cabal and CHANGELOG.md files according to the
  versioning process.
• The version bounds in .cabal files for all affected packages are updated. If you change the bounds in a cabal file, that package itself must have a version increase. (See RELEASING.md)
• All visible changes are prepended to the latest section of a CHANGELOG.md for the affected packages. New section is never added with the code changes. (See RELEASING.md)
• Code is formatted with fourmolu (use scripts/fourmolize.sh)
• Cabal files are formatted (use scripts/cabal-format.sh)
• hie.yaml has been updated (use scripts/gen-hie.sh)
• Self-reviewed the diff

[lehins]

Perfect!