Add trait methods to alloy_network_primitives::TransactionResponse

[emhane]

Motivation

Removing the optimism feature from reth-rpc-types-compat in a simple way, requires implementing the conversion from a signed transaction into an rpc transaction object, into the crates that define the associated types of alloy_network::Network. Otherwise, we are not able to access the additional OP fields for example.

Moving into reth-optimsim-rpc is not an option, since neither the trait for conversion nor the <op_alloy_network::Optimism as Network>::TransactionResponse type are defined in the reth-optimsim-rpc crate

Solution

Adds trait methods to alloy_network_primitives::TransactionResponse for filling a alloy_network_primitives::Transaction from alloy_consensus::Signed<impl alloy_consensus::Transaction>.

PR Checklist

• Added Tests
• Added Documentation
• Breaking changes

[mattsse]

let's do the additional trait Transaction first and think about the TransactionResponse fn(&impl Transaction) functions separately

[emhane]

let's do the additional trait Transaction first and think about the TransactionResponse fn(&impl Transaction) functions separately

that's exactly how it is done. see base of prs. first pr: #1172

[mattsse]

sorry I missed that pr

[emhane]

re-request review @mattsse

[emhane]

extracted yet another bit #1198

[mattsse]

we can't really solve this on the type trait, this is a server side problem because only there this type is created

[emhane]

we can't really solve this on the type trait, this is a server side problem because only there this type is created

how come? this would be following pattern https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/blob/e6dc947a3728637aa3b0f78c893e8f24dc468357/crates/transaction-pool/src/traits.rs#L812-L819

[mattsse]

converting types from consensus to rpc can't really be solved like this because this constrains it to alloy_consensus::Transaction

[mattsse]

these functions won't work, because they constrain type creation, we can not lock this in in the trait function

[emhane]

how come?

[mattsse]

closing this, because we can't support the fill feature like this, because this conversion is type specific.

and the additional gas functions doesn't really make sense like this because this info should be encapsulated in the transaction itself, especially if we proceed with

#1169