feat(gnorkle): Add periodic feed

[0xtekgrinder]

This PR implements add a few features into the gnorkle p/demo/examples realms:

• A multi value ingestor to ingest multiple values
• A periodic feed to only commits values between time periods
• A little refactor to have a generic marshal json of all feeds

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

[deelawn]

Nice job. I think this is a great start. One question I have is -- is this supposed to be used as a feed for a VRF? I think that this is fine for a generic implementation for a periodic feed and a multistream ingester, but to me is seems that a VRF would have something more similar to what could be described as a continuous feed. There would be no "periods" defined by the feed and no "committing" of values by the ingester; instead each call to retrieve a value would perform an aggregation on the data in the ingester's store buffer, producing a pseudo-random string or integer value. Right now it is just joining strings together for each period, so each value obtained would remain the same for each period. A continuous feed would make it possible to produce a different value at every block, or even produce different values within the same block depending on the transactions in the block and their contents.

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 3 months with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 3 months.

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
• The pull request description provides enough details (checked by @n2p5)

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: 0xtekgrinder/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the organization reviewed the pull request (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

• team core-contributors

[thehowl]

I'll let someone of the review team take a look at this first. In the meantime, can you ensure the CI is passing?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!