[Utility] trustless relays servicer token validation

[adshmh]

Description

Add validation of application's session tokens to the servicer.

Issue

Part of work on #754

Type of change

Please mark the relevant option(s):

• New feature, functionality or library
• Bug fix
• Code health or cleanup
• Major breaking change
• Documentation
• Other

List of changes

• Servicer now validates the availability of tokens in the current session before executing relays.

Testing

• make develop_test; if any code changes were made
• make test_e2e on k8s LocalNet; if any code changes were made
• e2e-devnet-test passes tests on DevNet; if any code was changed
• Docker Compose LocalNet; if any major functionality was changed or introduced
• k8s LocalNet; if any infrastructure or configuration changes were made

Required Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [] I have added, or updated, godoc format comments on touched members (see: tip.golang.org/doc/comment)
• I have tested my changes using the available tooling
• I have updated the corresponding CHANGELOG

If Applicable Checklist

• I have updated the corresponding README(s); local and/or global
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added, or updated, mermaid.js diagrams in the corresponding README(s)
• I have added, or updated, documentation and mermaid.js diagrams in shared/docs/* if I updated shared/*README(s)

[adshmh]

Will update this PR shortly to add/use Persistence module placeholders for maintaining state.

[adshmh]

@Olshansk @h5law this is now ready for review.

[adshmh]

Also pushed a commit to implement the relay execution.

[Olshansk]

@adshmh

1. This is amazing work! 🙌
2. Thank you for taking the initiative and working on this so quickly. There is more to come ;)
3. This almost in the right direction with the expectation of me leading you down the wrong path. Alongside all the comments, see the comment I left in utility/service/service.go and let me know if you have any more questions!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 47.48% and project coverage change: +0.28 🎉

Comparison is base (2d4f789) 31.52% compared to head (f3bfe13) 31.80%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #803      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   31.52%   31.80%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         107      107              
  Lines        9034     9190     +156     
==========================================
+ Hits         2848     2923      +75     
- Misses       5846     5914      +68     
- Partials      340      353      +13     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
utility/servicer/module.go	53.40% <47.48%> (-8.39%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[adshmh]

@adshmh regarding the three outstanding comments, please see my replies:

* [[Utility] trustless relays servicer token validation #803 (comment)](https://github.com/pokt-network/pocket/pull/803#discussion_r1228679186)

* [[Utility] trustless relays servicer token validation #803 (comment)](https://github.com/pokt-network/pocket/pull/803#discussion_r1228679364)

* [[Utility] trustless relays servicer token validation #803 (comment)](https://github.com/pokt-network/pocket/pull/803#discussion_r1228705803)

Will take a look at the changes shortly

Thank you for the review comments. Checked and addressed all 3.

[Olshansk]

@adshmh Just a few last-minute NITS.

This PR has been open for a while and more changes are being introduced so I'm beginning to get some PR fatigue. After the last few nits are tended to, let's merge it in and follow up in a separate PR if we find issues.

[adshmh]

@adshmh Just a few last-minute NITS.

This PR has been open for a while and more changes are being introduced so I'm beginning to get some PR fatigue. After the last few nits are tended to, let's merge it in and follow up in a separate PR if we find issues.

@Olshansk thank you for the reminder and multiple rounds of review.
In the most recent commits I have tried to address the remaining review comments through minimum changes, even reverting a config change that had been introduced late in the PR and had not received thorough review.

[Olshansk]

Just one more comment around naming & comments.

We are probably missing something, but we can merge it in and fix it later on main. We've already made A TON of progress on this!

[adshmh]

@Olshansk sorry for the delay on this. I will address the remaining review comments within 1 day.

[Olshansk]

Just a couple of last-minute stylistic NITs but approving since it looks good to me!

[adshmh]

Just a couple of last-minute stylistic NITs but approving since it looks good to me!

Thank you for the detailed review. The 2 remaining review comments are now addressed. I will merge once CI checks pass.