feat: Update solver models to include vouching, whitelisting, and service fee

[bram-vdberg]

This PR extends #48 to include both whitelisting and vouching information on the solver-network relation. It also updates the solver-bonding-pool relation to indicate whether it is a full bonding pool or a reduced bonding pool and updates the solver model to indicate whether or not the solver pays a service fee.

It also adds flags to the solver-network and solver models to indicate whether a solver is colocated and whether a solver's address is colocated.

[anxolin]

Great!

Just some minor comments.

Also, not from this PR, but I didn't get why this relationship allows more than one solver to the same "Solver bonding pool". I would think you want to limit it to one solver. This way, yes multiple solvers can stil belong to many bonding pool, but you really keep track of the joining joinOn date you have in this relation entity.

Otherwise, you will have two options to add a new solver to a pool:

• Edit "Solver Bonding Pool" and add it to the list of solvers
• Add a new "Solver Bonding Pool" and map it to the same "Bonding pool"

Does it make sense?

[bram-vdberg]

Great!

Just some minor comments.

Also, not from this PR, but I didn't get why this relationship allows more than one solver to the same "Solver bonding pool". I would think you want to limit it to one solver. This way, yes multiple solvers can stil belong to many bonding pool, but you really keep track of the joining joinOn date you have in this relation entity.

Otherwise, you will have two options to add a new solver to a pool:

* Edit "Solver Bonding Pool" and add it to the list of solvers

* Add a new "Solver Bonding Pool" and map it to the same "Bonding pool"

Does it make sense?

Thanks, I think this makes sense. At the moment we only update the solver-bonding-pool relationship and I don't think we use the bonding-pool one. I'll set up a PR for that.

[anxolin]

Should this be merged and deployed? I'm commander this week, I could help with this

Approving since you are the one that knows best the model, but my understanding is that 1 solver belongs to only one pool, so probably you want to reflect that in the model. right now its a N:M relationship so you can geet a lot of bonding pools for the same solver

[bram-vdberg]

Should this be merged and deployed? I'm commander this week, I could help with this

Approving since you are the one that knows best the model, but my understanding is that 1 solver belongs to only one pool, so probably you want to reflect that in the model. right now its a N:M relationship so you can geet a lot of bonding pools for the same solver

Thanks, we should look at restructuring this part a bit in a follow-up PR since it's a bit hard to represent. For example, if a solver set's up a reduced bonding pool then in a way they're in both the CoW bonding pool and the reduced bonding pool.