doc: improve documentation for trie crate

[tcoratger]

This PR introduces enhanced documentation in the trie crate.

[rkrasiuk]

i am in favor of accepting additional docs, but against the refactor. the readability is arguably improved and it might introduce unexpected behavioral changes not caught in the review

[tcoratger]

i am in favor of accepting additional docs, but against the refactor. the readability is arguably improved and it might introduce unexpected behavioral changes not caught in the review

@rkrasiuk I just found the bug that caused the CI to fail, I fixed it. No worries, I completely understand your point about refactoring, it generates additional review time for your team and you can consider it not useful sometimes as long as the functions are readable and work.

I'm taking advantage of a few hours of free time to read the code and try to figure it out in its entirety. I add documentation where I see that it is missing and I try to improve certain small functions when I see that it is possible to make them a little more readable or more Rust idiomatic to maintain a perfect codebase.

However if you don't want code changes like that I completely understand and I can revert all the modified functions, there is no problem :) Just tell me

(I'm also trying to compare with Geth to see where reth is behind)

[rkrasiuk]

@tcoratger really appreciate you spending your free time around the codebase! i don't mind refactors and spending additional time reviewing them if they bring meaningful improvements to the readability of the code. my perceived defensiveness is caused by the sensitivity of this code and it being in the critical path of the stability of the node. hope you understand :)

[tcoratger]

@rkrasiuk Of course I understand, no problem at all. Just pushed a commit where I reverted all function refactoring :)

[rkrasiuk]

@tcoratger thanks! i don't mind having the refactor in a separate PR. i'll just have to run additional non-automated tests to confirm everything works as expected

[rkrasiuk]

lgtm, thanks!

[tcoratger]

@tcoratger thanks! i don't mind having the refactor in a separate PR. i'll just have to run additional non-automated tests to confirm everything works as expected

@rkrasiuk Of course, will open another PR in a bit with the refactor so that you can have a deep look if you are interested :)