refactor full_node add_block

[almogdepaz]

Purpose:

full node add_block is only used to add blocks on top of the current Peak, it does not need ForkInfo besides from the usage in tests, this pr removes that field and updates all the tests, this allows us to remove cases from blockchain.py add_block that dont serve us in node operation

Current Behavior:

New Behavior:

Testing Notes:

[arvidn]

looks really good!

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[almogdepaz]

@arvid
from what i can tell theres an issue where a wallet with a trusted node will lose information if the node and wallet where considered synced and the node went into a long sync

there are 2 options for updating the wallet in this case from what i can tell

1. send all the updates to the wallet when we are done -> we dont currently do that when we long sync, we dont aggregrate each batch result and the wallet wont get the updates at the end this

   chia-blockchain/chia/full_node/full_node.py

   Line 1482 in 782bd01

   state_change_summary = StateChangeSummary(peak, uint32(max(peak.height - 1, 0)), [], [], [], [])

   is where we stage the summary that we send to update wallets inside peak_post_processing_2
2. the wallet will trigger a wallet long sync and ask for everything it needs -> this only happens when the node is marked as not_synced in the wallet but if it was already marked as synced the only way for it to change is a disconnect

still trying to understand whats the better path here, if its aggregating or just telling the wallet to resync

i assume telling the wallet to resync since there is a limit to how much data we can aggregate and send in one go

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[arvidn]

looks really good. I have a few questions. Was it deliberate to add the __init__.py file?