feat(house_keeper): Remove GCS Blob Cleaner

[EmilLuta]

What ❔

This feature is replaced with a 30 days TTL policy in GCS. The policy is already applied, this work cleans unnecessary component on core side.

Why ❔

Unnecessary work on infra resources. Additionally, the implementation closely ties the codebase to GCS.

Checklist

• PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs).
• Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
• Documentation comments have been added / updated.
• Code has been formatted via zk fmt and zk lint.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ba88f67) 35.85% compared to head (e90efca) 36.06%.
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head e90efca differs from pull request most recent head 7c48e40. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7c48e40 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #321      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   35.85%   36.06%   +0.20%     
==========================================
  Files         519      518       -1     
  Lines       27828    27702     -126     
==========================================
+ Hits         9978     9990      +12     
+ Misses      17850    17712     -138     

Files	Coverage Δ
core/lib/config/src/configs/house_keeper.rs	50.00% <ø> (ø)
core/lib/dal/src/blocks_dal.rs	80.22% <ø> (+2.17%)	⬆️
core/lib/dal/src/prover_dal.rs	48.80% <ø> (+4.72%)	⬆️
core/lib/dal/src/witness_generator_dal.rs	59.77% <ø> (+10.00%)	⬆️
core/lib/zksync_core/src/lib.rs	8.12% <ø> (ø)

... and 33 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[popzxc]

Probably we should document somewhere that we expect GCS TTL to be configured, but I'm not sure where exactly.

[EmilLuta]

Probably we should document somewhere that we expect GCS TTL to be configured, but I'm not sure where exactly.

I think you're right and agree with the thought overall. This seems more like infra work and they already keep most infra as IaC. That said, us not documenting this will end up with file accumulating in some storage (not a disastrous end-state). You think we should start some infra invariant documentation we expect for core? If yes, perhaps better done through a different task. WDYT?

[popzxc]

I agree that it doesn't have to be done in this PR.
I also agree that infra-agnostic docs will be good to have -- we aim to be fully infra-agnostic via zkStack in the future; so knowing that there is no embedded blob cleaning functionality may be useful to some folks (imagine someone running their own object store on bare metal).

[EmilLuta]

I agree that it doesn't have to be done in this PR. I also agree that infra-agnostic docs will be good to have -- we aim to be fully infra-agnostic via zkStack in the future; so knowing that there is no embedded blob cleaning functionality may be useful to some folks (imagine someone running their own object store on bare metal).

Created ticket to track it.