feat: migrate stacks generate txs, closes LEA-1732

[fbwoolf]

This PR migrates code from the extension to generate the unsigned stacks tx for the STX send flow.

Approach here now uses a separate Provider for each chain/protocol form so that we can handle loading data in the provider. I also did a version using our loader pattern, which seemed ok too, but felt using this approach might be more straightforward with using React context for the forms. We can add a loading state later, etc.

I also removed any helper functions I wasn't directly using with generating the unsigned tx. I realized I had ported over some unnec functions for this work. I got rid of all the stacks connect types.

I did add two new money formatters that can eventually help to replace stacksValue, thought I didn't end up needing them anywhere for now.

[linear]

LEA-1732 Migrate code to generate unsigned stx tx to mono repo

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 3.90625% with 123 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 23.33%. Comparing base (ab26689) to head (d869a60).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../src/transactions/generate-unsigned-transaction.ts	0.00%	45 Missing ⚠️
packages/stacks/src/stacks.utils.ts	7.31%	38 Missing ⚠️
...es/stacks/src/transactions/post-condition.utils.ts	0.00%	15 Missing ⚠️
...kages/stacks/src/transactions/transaction.types.ts	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
packages/utils/src/money/format-money.ts	16.66%	10 Missing ⚠️
packages/stacks/src/transactions/index.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
packages/stacks/src/index.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #627      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   23.73%   23.33%   -0.41%     
==========================================
  Files         165      169       +4     
  Lines        6181     6309     +128     
  Branches      335      339       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         1467     1472       +5     
- Misses       4714     4837     +123     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/stacks/src/index.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/stacks/src/transactions/index.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/utils/src/money/format-money.ts	53.73% <16.66%> (-8.09%)	⬇️
...kages/stacks/src/transactions/transaction.types.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/stacks/src/transactions/post-condition.utils.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/stacks/src/stacks.utils.ts	48.80% <7.31%> (-39.57%)	⬇️
.../src/transactions/generate-unsigned-transaction.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Components	Coverage Δ
bitcoin	62.04% <ø> (ø)
query	12.67% <ø> (ø)
utils	47.17% <16.66%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
crypto	68.21% <ø> (ø)
stacks	27.47% <2.58%> (-27.24%)	⬇️

---- 🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
• JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

[pete-watters]

Nice work @fbwoolf 👍

There's some console logs + commented code to remove.

For the stacks package work, maybe we could add some of the functions into smaller independent files and generate some unit tests for them also?

[edgarkhanzadian]

Great work!🚀

[kyranjamie]

Great work @fbwoolf

Lots to discuss here though. I think there's some code, and general patterns here, we might want to reconsider bringing over if possible

[kyranjamie]

I used an approach where for each form we have a SendForm.StacksSetter (or appropriate chain/prototool) to set nec form data. We do this in the extension with NonceSetter. I think we can use this later to load/set fee values, etc. Open to other ideas here too.

I would investigate options where we do not even render the form components until we have this data loaded from the external source. Either the loader pattern, or some kind of route loader if Expo has those.

[fbwoolf]

Great work @fbwoolf

Lots to discuss here though. I think there's some code, and general patterns here, we might want to reconsider bringing over if possible

Yep, agree, I was debating abt just doing a draft PR but wasn't sure how quickly we wanted to push the send form forward. I'll change this to draft and tackle some of the refactoring you pointed out. I mostly wanted to make sure I got feedback on effort here so far. 👍