feat(protocol): Add setter to IAddressManager of AddressResolver

[adaki2004]

Adding a setter to IAddressManager.

Because contracts connected to AddressManager (be it static or not) via an interface, a setter is necessary.

See issue : #13798

Also I feel there is a need for the setter, because both @dantaik and @Brechtpd indicated, that each contract (i.e. ProofVerifier, TaikoL1, Bridge) shall have it's own AddressResolver (= IAddressManager interface) - tho currently the TaikoL1, Bridge, TaikoToken sharing the same AddressManager (as we can see within the tests and also within the deployment script).

There could be situations (as described in discord convo) which implies security issues for not having a setter OR we indeed need separate instances for those contracts. For an example like: TaikoL1 needs BridgeV2, although TaikoNFTBridge still needs BridgeV1, therefore TaikoL1 and TaikoNFTBridge cannot share the same.

[github-actions]

This pull request adds a setter to the IAddressManager.

• The commit message is clear and concise.
• The code changes are well-formatted and easy to read.
• The code is properly indented.
• The function setIAddressManager is a valid setter for the IAddressManager contract address.
• The function has proper input validation to check if the address is a valid one.
• There is an event emitted when the address changes.
• It would be good to add an extra check to make sure that the new address manager is actually an instance of the IAddressManager contract.

[Brechtpd]

I think this makes sense in general.

[github-actions]

Overall, the changes look good. Here are a few points to consider:

• In patch 1/4, it looks like the event IAddressManagerChanged is missing the I prefix.
• In patch 3/4, the function setIAddressManager should be renamed to setAddressManager to match the event name in patch 1/4.
• In patch 4/4, there is a typo in the comment for the newAddressManager parameter. It should be "Sets a new AddressManager's address" instead of "Sets a new address manager contract address".

[github-actions]

Overall, this pull request looks good. Here are a few comments on the code changes:

• In Patch 1/4, the event IAddressManagerChanged was added. It should be named AddressManagerChanged to be consistent with other naming conventions in the codebase.
• In Patch 3/4, the event name was changed from IAddressManagerChanged to AddressManagerChanged.
• In Patch 4/4, the function name was changed from setIAddressManager to setAddressManager. This is consistent with the change in Patch 3/4.

[adaki2004]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree. The idea is that each contract that needs address lookup is an IAddressResover itself. These address lookup contracts do not expose any function to set addresses as this is done by the admin interacting directly with the underlying/shared AddressManager.

@dantaik this function is not setting the lookup addresses, it is setting the address of the AddressManager. Currently each and every contract which inherits from EssentialContract has no chance to update their AddressManager contract in case for example it needs to (for whatever reason, be it security or 2 contracts needs to have separate AddressManager).

[adaki2004]

In the case two contracts require the same string name to be resolved to different addresses, then they just need to use two different AddressManager, and updating addresses are also done by these two AddressManager.

Exactly this is what it solves. Currently you cannot do anything to separate it (after the 2 contracts deployed) - only by deploying a new proxy as well OR upgrading with a proxy to have this setter which i'm adding here.