refactor(feeder): use the new includeSignature flag in the get_state_update feeder endpoint

[thiagodeev]

Combine get_state_update + get_signature into a single feeder call by passing the new includeSignature=true parameter to get_state_update. Removes the redundant f.client.Signature(ctx, blockID) call in starknetdata/feeder.stateUpdateWithBlock.

• Split clients/feeder.Client.StateUpdateWithBlock into two methods:
  • StateUpdateWithBlock(ctx, blockID) — unchanged behaviour, no signature.
  • StateUpdateWithBlockAndSignature(ctx, blockID) — single request, returns state update + block + signature.
• Add starknet.StateUpdateWithBlockAndSignature type carrying Signature []*felt.Felt.
• adapters/sn2core.AdaptBlock now takes []*felt.Felt instead of *starknet.Signature.
• Update clients/feeder/testdata/**/state_update_with_block/*.json fixtures to include the signature field (values pulled from the matching signature/*.json)

Reference: https://demerzelsolutions.slack.com/archives/C03090TS3TK/p1777375140952279

Extra:

• In clients/feeder/feeder.go, per-method c.get + json.NewDecoder(body).Decode(&x) boilerplate was replaced by a single generic doRequest[T any](ctx, client, queryURL) (*T, error) helper. Methods in the file are now sorted alphabetically. No behavioural change, just style.

Note:

• this PR can only be merged after the feeder implements this new feature

TODO

• add tests for the new MigrationFeeder feat
• update this PR description wiht the chagnes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 51.67785% with 72 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 76.20%. Comparing base (6fc5100) to head (4457b3c).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
starknetdata/feeder/migrationFeeder.go	4.76%	60 Missing ⚠️
clients/feeder/feeder.go	89.28%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
starknetdata/feeder/feeder.go	75.00%	2 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (51.67%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3601      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.16%   76.20%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         396      397       +1     
  Lines       36585    36541      -44     
==========================================
- Hits        27865    27846      -19     
+ Misses       6743     6726      -17     
+ Partials     1977     1969       -8     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[RafaelGranza]

Not approving yet, only because I'd like to run this against my own Juno node first. Code-wise looks fine.

[RafaelGranza]

After testing locally, sepolia-integration works as expected, and I would have
approved based on the approach we'd originally agreed on.

But since you'll be adding the capability-detection on top of this so it stays
compatible with all Starknet versions, I'd rather wait and re-test once that
lands before approving.

[RafaelGranza]

Holding off on approval.

I know the capability detection is coming in a follow-up, but I'd rather see the optimization and the detection land as a single PR. Otherwise the node sits in a half-broken state in between, working on sepolia-integration but dropping Block.Signatures on mainnet/sepolia/integration.

Happy to approve as soon as the two are combined.

[rodrodros]

I see the change but I am unsure if this is the best way of doing it 🤔. Let's talk on Monday