Inject ActionEvaluator and BlockChainStates explicitly

[longfin]

This PR aims to extract ActionEvaluator<T> creation, from BlockChain<T> constructor to outside. to achieve that, we need to solve the dependency chain as below.

1. ActionEvaluator<T> depends BlockChain<T> as IBlockChainStates<T>.
2. To perform as IBlockChainStates<T>, BlockChain<T> depends IStore, IStateStore, and itself. (due to state completion).

In other words, if we can implement IBlockChainState<T> without the whole BlockChain<T>, extracting ActionEvaluator<T> creation from BlockChain<T> constructor seems possible.

• At first, I introduced a new BlockChainStates<T> implementing IBlockChainStates<T>, instead of BlockChain<T>.
• Moved GetBlances(), GetStates() and GetTotalSupply() from BlockChain<T> to BlockChainStates<T>.
  • I think that we have a rough consensus about obsoleting the state completion feature, but it can be another long story. so I deferred it to later PR.
  • To keep current behavior using StateCompleter<T>s, I introduced BlockChainStates<T>.Bind(). it takes BlockChain<T> to support previous methods.

[tkiapril]

Just a little question, but what would happen if Store and StateStore objects passed to BlockChain constructor is different from what was passed to BlockChainStates constructor that is passed to the BlockChain constructor?

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 221 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +171 -50
Percentile : 62.1%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +4 -0
.cs : +167 -50

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[longfin]

Just a little question, but what would happen if Store and StateStore objects passed to BlockChain constructor is different from what was passed to BlockChainStates constructor that is passed to the BlockChain constructor?

Basically, I believe the responsibility for the chain state and its calculation in Blockchain<T> should be lesser than now. but at least for now, it may cause errors or unintended behaviors. therefore a kind of check or guard would be good too.

[longfin]

therefore a kind of check or guard would be good too.

On second thought, adding a guard for IStore and IStateStore can be tricky since it's hard to suppose a proper way to do an equivalence check. 🤔