refactor: leafdata implementations

[AvivYossef-starkware]

Needed for the implementation of serialize for FilledTree<L: LeafData>.

---

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 24 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.03%. Comparing base (59c6c07) to head (ddbdbce).

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/committer/src/storage/serde_trait.rs	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
...src/patricia_merkle_tree/filled_tree/node_serde.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...r/src/patricia_merkle_tree/node_data/leaf_serde.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #115      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.10%   72.03%   -1.08%     
==========================================
  Files          30       31       +1     
  Lines        1071     1087      +16     
  Branches     1071     1087      +16     
==========================================
  Hits          783      783              
- Misses        251      267      +16     
  Partials       37       37              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[AvivYossef-starkware]

I would love to hear if you have a more elegant way of doing it.
Maybe changing the Serializable trait and making leaf data Implement Part of it.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 2 of 5 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 2 of 5 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @amosStarkware)

[AvivYossef-starkware]

The PR is for LeafdataImpl impl DB object trait.

Reviewable status: 0 of 6 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @amosStarkware and @dorimedini-starkware)

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 5 files at r1, 3 of 5 files at r2, 1 of 2 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 5 of 6 files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @amosStarkware and @AvivYossef-starkware)

---

crates/committer/src/patricia_merkle_tree/filled_tree/node_serde.rs line 42 at r3 (raw file):

}

impl<L: LeafData + DBObject> DBObject for FilledNode<L> {

All "filled leaves" (i.e. leaves with actual data) should be DBObjects, right?
since this is the case, I would bind the LeafData trait to DBObject directly (and remove the extra binding here):

trait LeafData: Clone + Sync + Send + DBObject

Suggestion:

<L: LeafData>

---

crates/committer/src/patricia_merkle_tree/filled_tree/node_serde.rs line 80 at r3 (raw file):

    }

    /// Returns the prefix of the filled node.

move this docstring (and rephrase to be general) to the DbObject trait; in general it's best to document functions once.
if the specific implementation of a trait function should get it's own docstring, that would be a special case.

Suggestion:

/// Returns the storage key prefix of the DB object.

---

crates/committer/src/storage/serde_trait.rs line 0 at r3 (raw file):
this file should be renamed to db_object.rs or something... "serde" is no longer a good name.
not part of this PR in any case (non-blocking)

---

crates/committer/src/storage/serde_trait.rs line 9 at r3 (raw file):

    fn get_prefix(&self) -> StoragePrefix;
    /// Returns a `StorageKey` from a prefix and a suffix.

newline between functions

Suggestion:

    fn get_prefix(&self) -> StoragePrefix;
    
    /// Returns a `StorageKey` from a prefix and a suffix.

---

crates/committer_cli/src/tests/python_tests.rs line 0 at r3 (raw file):
In this file I see this pattern several times:

leaf.get_db_key(leaf.suffix());

where leaf is a FilledNode.
please change this to

leaf.db_key();

I know you can't just add a suffix() function to the DBObject trait, but you can add a db_key() function to the impl<L: LeafData> FilledNode<L> block which uses the suffix.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @amosStarkware and @AvivYossef-starkware)

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @amosStarkware and @AvivYossef-starkware)