feat: add failsafe to transaction replay

[hstove]

• Closes TX Replay: Failsafe logic in signer state #6206

(Opening as a draft - the test could be improved, and I'm not very confident in the "rules" implemented here)

This PR implements a 'failsafe' for transaction replay - if we've had 2 burn blocks since the new fork tip, clear the replay set. While this is very imperfect, it prioritizes liveness of the chain over guarantees about replay getting executed as expected. Most of the time, this shouldn't make a difference anyways. A new config field, reset_replay_set_after_fork_blocks, is provided to allow changing this value (which defaults to 2).

I've also refactored many of the transaction replay tests to do shallower forks, which aligns much more with reality. This actually caught a bug in the fork detection logic, which we were getting away with due to the tests using deeper forks. We now use a descendency check to determine whether a new burn block is a fork, where we previously did a simple check against the height of a new burn block.

[hstove]

After some discussion, we're going to update this to use the rule of "once there are 2 burn blocks past the previous tip, clear the replay set if we're still in it". We'll use a config value for the "2 burn blocks" value.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 9.23077% with 649 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.57%. Comparing base (0752841) to head (5d0c27e).
⚠️ Report is 37 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
stacks-node/src/tests/signer/v0.rs	0.17%	576 Missing ⚠️
stacks-node/src/tests/signer/mod.rs	5.00%	38 Missing ⚠️
stacks-signer/src/v0/signer_state.rs	65.27%	25 Missing ⚠️
stackslib/src/net/api/postblock_proposal.rs	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6212      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    75.33%   80.57%   +5.24%     
===========================================
  Files          555      555              
  Lines       350915   350983      +68     
===========================================
+ Hits        264358   282821   +18463     
+ Misses       86557    68162   -18395     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
stacks-node/src/tests/nakamoto_integrations.rs	85.00% <100.00%> (+11.15%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/chainstate/mod.rs	90.74% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/chainstate/tests/v1.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (+10.85%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/chainstate/tests/v2.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (+3.67%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/client/mod.rs	99.24% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/config.rs	91.38% <100.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/runloop.rs	86.16% <100.00%> (+9.48%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/tests/signer_state.rs	98.88% <100.00%> (+46.22%)	⬆️
stacks-signer/src/v0/signer.rs	72.10% <100.00%> (+1.90%)	⬆️
stackslib/src/net/api/postblock_proposal.rs	65.35% <0.00%> (+2.90%)	⬆️
... and 3 more

... and 237 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0752841...5d0c27e. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[fdefelici]

Overall the implementation looks fine!

As expected, all tx_replay_* tests are currently failing due to the two-tenure limit, for the reasons reported in the PR description. Once the current approach is finalized, these tests will likely need to be revisited and properly adjusted to align with the new logic.

I've included a few remarks throughout the review suggesting possible improvements for readability and maintainability.

[hstove]

I've re-requested reviews here - after the latest round of test flakiness fixes from develop, CI is looking good here.

[jferrant]

LGTM aside from all the failing tests. I saw similar tests failing in my 2 phase commit PR. maybe take a look there and see if my fixes also fix the issues you are seeing (they are some subtle timing fixes that are probably causing issues on develop but don't always manifest)

[fdefelici]

LGMT!

Just a small remark about an unused method.

PS: Don't know if it is by chance, but all tests are green....I'll take a screenshot :)

[fdefelici]

LGMT!

Failing tests don't seem related to this change.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.