feat!: protocols filter peers per shard

[danisharora099]

Problem

The getPeers functionality for BaseProtocol currently only picked peers according to the protocol found and thus not taking account if the node is part of TWN, and runs on a shard.

Solution

This PR also filters on the basis of the shard a particular node is part of, if they support sharding.

Notes

There is a requirement to wait for ~50/100ms after a peer:connect event is fired as the Metadata Protocol is an async operation for which we need to wait to populate shard info, or disconnect if shard info is incorrect.

This, along with fixes for the CI tests & some improvements are part of: #1759

Followup:

• Remove this delay: feat: use metadata protocol for awaiting connection to remote peer #1759

[github-actions]

size-limit report 📦

Path	Size	Loading time (3g)	Running time (snapdragon)	Total time
Waku core	32.59 KB (-44.24% 🔽)	652 ms (-44.24% 🔽)	399 ms (-36.21% 🔽)	1.1 s
Waku Simple Light Node	298.42 KB (-0.11% 🔽)	6 s (-0.11% 🔽)	1.9 s (+21.23% 🔺)	7.9 s
ECIES encryption	31.97 KB (0%)	640 ms (0%)	618 ms (-34.65% 🔽)	1.3 s
Symmetric encryption	31.96 KB (0%)	640 ms (0%)	597 ms (-24.22% 🔽)	1.3 s
DNS discovery	106.77 KB (+0.14% 🔺)	2.2 s (+0.14% 🔺)	1.8 s (+57.33% 🔺)	3.9 s
Privacy preserving protocols	145 KB (0%)	2.9 s (0%)	1.5 s (-19.25% 🔽)	4.4 s
Light protocols	30.15 KB (-46.04% 🔽)	603 ms (-46.04% 🔽)	600 ms (+13.04% 🔺)	1.3 s
History retrieval protocols	29.04 KB (-46.94% 🔽)	581 ms (-46.94% 🔽)	554 ms (-15.88% 🔽)	1.2 s
Deterministic Message Hashing	5.92 KB (0%)	119 ms (0%)	145 ms (-18.03% 🔽)	263 ms

[weboko]

@danisharora099 there are some conflicts, is it ok to review with them?

[danisharora099]

=

@danisharora099 there are some conflicts, is it ok to review with them?

Yes! However, I've resolved the conflicts now :)

---

While reviewing per commit would have been ideal, the commits from the PR got lost in a rebase/force-push I did, can't retrieve them through reflog either.
Apologies for hassle! For context, this PR also contains some already some reviewed work from #1759

Thank you!