[stateless_validation] validate incoming partial witness heights

[marcelo-gonzalez]

This adds logic to
PartialWitnessActor::validate_partial_encoded_state_witness() that checks that the height is greater than the current final head height (as is done in Client::process_chunk_state_witness()), and not more than five ahead of the current head height, similar to what's done in EncodedChunksCache::height_within_horizon()

For now we read the head and final head heights directlly from the database, but in the future this should be changed so that we make a request to the client for this info

Related issue: #11301

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 15 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.35%. Comparing base (a8ff1d2) to head (4be1081).
Report is 13 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...alidation/partial_witness/partial_witness_actor.rs	34.78%	13 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11398      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.27%   71.35%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         784      784              
  Lines      157847   158134     +287     
  Branches   157847   158134     +287     
==========================================
+ Hits       112499   112843     +344     
+ Misses      40505    40417      -88     
- Partials     4843     4874      +31     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility	0.24% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
db-migration	0.24% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
genesis-check	1.38% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration-tests	37.48% <40.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
linux	68.84% <16.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
linux-nightly	70.80% <40.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
macos	52.41% <16.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
pytests	1.60% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
sanity-checks	1.39% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	65.72% <16.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
upgradability	0.28% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[tayfunelmas]

Are these checks duplicated (eg., you mentioned the same check happens in process_chunk_state_witness) or the existing checks belong to old code paths?

[marcelo-gonzalez]

Are these checks duplicated (eg., you mentioned the same check happens in process_chunk_state_witness) or the existing checks belong to old code paths?

many of the existing checks were deleted in this PR: #11179

[pugachAG]

LGTM, but this makes the check introduced in #11081 redundant, so let's remove it as part of this PR

[marcelo-gonzalez]

LGTM, but this makes the check introduced in #11081 redundant, so let's remove it as part of this PR

removed and moved the comment over