Use workspace dependencies for tee-worker(s)

[Kailai-Wang]

Context

Warning

It's a breaking change for bitacross client due to the DirectRequestStatus type change

As topic.

This PR tries to unify the cargo dependencies of identity-worker and bitacross-worker to form a workspace-based configuration.

Please note:

• the common crates are under tee-worker/common/
• enclave-runtime needs to have its own workspace for sgx-specific patches
• some crates aren't merged, as they are differently implemented and/or meant to be specific for each worker, e.g. sgx-runtime, stf-executor, enclave-api ... see e.g. identity/core and identity/core-primitives for those crates. It's still possible to merge them into a "common" crate, but bigger code change would be needed
• as a result, the workspace would contain two crates with the same name (e.g. ita-stf), to overcome this, I prepended the crate name with the worker type, e.g. id-ita-stf vs bc-ita-stf.
• enum DirectRequestStatus is defined with different entry orders in id- and bc-worker. I follow the one in id-worker to not break anything from IDHub. Do we need to change anything for bc-worker? cc @kziemianek
• some changes can be seen as an attempt (example) to merge the crates, e.g. HandleParentchainEvents, FilterEvents which contains fn for both workers

fixes P-242
fixes P-552

[Kailai-Wang]

fixes P-242
fixes P-552

[linear]

P-552 Workspace dependencies for BitAcross Worker

[jonalvarezz]

what a great effort, thanks @Kailai-Wang!

lgtm

[kziemianek]

@Kailai-Wang this will be a breaking change for a client:
we need to:

• update definition here
• let relayer team know so they can adjust their code

[silva-fj]

It looks good overall 👍🏼
I can feel the pain of making this changes 😆

[Kailai-Wang]

@Kailai-Wang this will be a breaking change for a client: we need to:

• update definition here
• let relayer team know so they can adjust their code

Thanks @kziemianek !
Here it is: c96fc21
The only thing that I'm not that sure is if H256 type is natively supported - I assume yes, as I don't see errors when compiling and running it (bc-worker should not get TrustedOperationStatus anyway)

[kziemianek]

@Kailai-Wang this will be a breaking change for a client: we need to:

• update definition here
• let relayer team know so they can adjust their code

Thanks @kziemianek ! Here it is: c96fc21 The only thing that I'm not that sure is if H256 type is natively supported - I assume yes, as I don't see errors when compiling and running it (bc-worker should not get TrustedOperationStatus anyway)

It should be supported see.