feat: add a CLI flag for secondary nodes

[alessandromazza98]

Closes #3924

This PR is an attempt to solve that issue.

It solves it in a fixed way by:

• adding a secondary flag in the Cli.
• adding a secondary flag also in the node command.
• when it is enabled, discovery_port, listener_port, auth_rpc, auth_port, http_port, ws_port are changed to a different and fixed number.

Let me know what do you think.

The other option I have is to make it dynamic so that the software makes a scan on the already used ports and chooses different ones.

I am not sure how to do it in that dynamic way right now but I can try if it's something you want to have.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4029 (168082f) into main (3d9e968) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 75.51%.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
bin/reth/src/cli/mod.rs	71.42% <50.00%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
bin/reth/src/node/mod.rs	26.09% <76.59%> (+3.81%)	⬆️

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests	16.71% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unit-tests	63.73% <75.51%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
reth binary	29.63% <75.51%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
blockchain tree	83.52% <ø> (ø)
pipeline	90.25% <ø> (ø)
storage (db)	74.81% <ø> (ø)
trie	94.88% <ø> (ø)
txpool	48.11% <ø> (ø)
networking	77.46% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
rpc	57.58% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️
consensus	63.42% <ø> (ø)
revm	31.74% <ø> (ø)
payload builder	6.37% <ø> (ø)
primitives	86.17% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️

[alessandromazza98]

Don't know why those checks did not pass. I didn't change the parts of code where the clippy gives errors.

[mattsse]

some nits,

needs rebase to get rid of clippy errors.

pending @onbjerg for approval/directions

[alessandromazza98]

In the meanwhile I rebased, fixed a little error, add test and a better doc comment.

[alessandromazza98]

I changed the --secondary flag to a --instance flag.

This way you can start a flexible number of nodes on the same computer and port numbers do not conflict with each other.

I choose a personal approach on selecting port numbers based on instance number. Let me know WDYT.

[onbjerg]

this looks good, some small nits left, thank you for the patience so far!

[alessandromazza98]

this looks good, some small nits left, thank you for the patience so far!

No problems, I'm happy to help. I fixed them.

For the max value of instances I choose 200 just to have a "good" whole number. Actual max value is 218 (following my adjustments of port numbers) but I thought 200 was a better number to have.

[onbjerg]

lgtm