chore(sequencing): replace BTreeMap with HashMap in StreamHandler

[guy-starkware]

I've wanted to remove the BTreeMap from StreamHandler for a while.
It functions the same as HashMap but has the ordered keys feature, which we no longer use.

It seems simpler to just work with one kind of map.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[guy-starkware]

• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from simulation network #2528 : 2 dependent PRs (#2532 , #2533 )
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from stream_handler_test #2526
• chore(sequencing): remove ConsensusMessage from converter test #2525
• chore(sequencing): remove mock context from manager_test.rs #2524
• chore(sequencing): add specific print message for wrong tx type #2518
• chore(sequencing): replace BTreeMap with HashMap in StreamHandler #2517 👈 (View in Graphite)
• chore(sequencing): remove ProposalChunk #2512
• chore(sequencing): remove ProposalWrapper #2510
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 13.22%. Comparing base (e3165c4) to head (e759892).
Report is 814 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2517       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   40.10%   13.22%   -26.89%     
===========================================
  Files          26       63       +37     
  Lines        1895     7744     +5849     
  Branches     1895     7744     +5849     
===========================================
+ Hits          760     1024      +264     
- Misses       1100     6683     +5583     
- Partials       35       37        +2     

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

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/stream_handler_test.rs line 38 at r1 (raw file):

    // Check if two vectors are the same, regardless of ordering
    fn do_vecs_match_unordered<T: PartialEq>(a: &[T], b: &[T]) -> bool

it also ignores duplicates, is this what u want?

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/stream_handler_test.rs line 38 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, asmaastarkware (asmaa-starkware) wrote…

it also ignores duplicates, is this what u want?

You are right. This probably doesn't matter in these test cases, but I will use a different comparison (I'm just going to order the vectors before checking the values.

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/stream_handler_test.rs line 47 at r2 (raw file):

        b.sort();
        let matching = a.iter().zip(b.iter()).filter(|&(a, b)| a == b).count();
        matching == a.len() && matching == b.len()

Check lengths first to avoid unnecessary sorting

Suggestion:

        if a.len() != b.len() {
            return false;
        }
        let mut a = a.clone();
        a.sort();
        let mut b = b.clone();
        b.sort();
        a == b

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/stream_handler_test.rs line 47 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, asmaastarkware (asmaa-starkware) wrote…

Check lengths first to avoid unnecessary sorting

For some reason I didn't know that a==b works. I think we can get rid of the length check altogether. As this is a test (on few elements) I don't see a reason to optimize it by checking lengths at all...

Thanks!

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @matan-starkware)

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @guy-starkware)

[guy-starkware]

Merge activity

• Dec 10, 9:07 AM EST: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Dec 10, 9:09 AM EST: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Dec 10, 9:36 AM EST: Graphite couldn't merge this PR because it was not satisfying all requirements (Failed CI: 'merge-gatekeeper').