Update rusqlite version (and sqlite)

[ASuciuX]

Description

Updates rusqlite to latest version 0.31.0. That updates the sqlite version used by it from 3.33.0 to 3.45.0.

Applicable issues

• fixes Update SQLITE Version to support STRICT tables #4824

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

• update rusqlite version to 0.31.0
• update changed methods
  • NO_PARAMS: got removed from rusqlite. create const equivalent in stacks_commons where sqlite related data was defined
  • get_raw renamed to get_ref
  • query and query_rows header updated constraints on the generic type P: 0.24.2 vs 0.31.0
• use params! macro in all implementations the same way instead of having &[&variable as &dyn ToSql] / params! / rusqlite::params! across the codebase
  • explicitly define the type &[&dyn ToSql] where params! is used
• update ToSql to be use rusqlite::Types::ToSql everywhere instead of a combination of use rusqlite::Types::ToSql and use rusqlite::ToSql
• pass tests running RUST_BACKTRACE=1 BITCOIND_TEST=1 cargo nextest run --test-threads 1
  • fixed these 2 tests from stacks-signer are failing

    Summary [1733.775s] 5141 tests run: 5141 passed (2 slow), 195 skipped
    

• run stacks-inspect with index range for blocks to check no breaking changes
  • last 1k blocks - from 2.5.0.0.5-latest archive
  • first 1k blocks
  • range
    • 99,990 to 100,000
    • 150,000 to 150,400
    • 132,000 to 132,300
    • 116,200 to 116,800

[kantai]

This LGTM, but it looks like you need to run cargo fmt-stacks

[ASuciuX]

How to check if nakamoto tenure table is empty?

If it is, this migration can be done to have it with STRICT cdf3398.
Otherwise, what should be done?

[kantai]

How to check if nakamoto tenure table is empty?

If it is, this migration can be done to have it with STRICT cdf3398.
Otherwise, what should be done?

There's an open PR (#4930) which drops and recreates the tenure table.
If this PR (#4948) merges before #4930, we can add the STRICT keyword to that PR. If #4930 merges first, we can add it in this PR.

[ASuciuX]

Done, I removed the nakamoto tenure table recreation from this PR.

[ASuciuX]

I've canceled the mutants workflow as it already run here and it will get into timeout with the same mutants caught https://github.com/stacks-network/stacks-core/actions/runs/9809500036.

[jbencin]

Can you a quick benchmark with hyperfine stacks-inspect replay-block ... before merging? I'm curious if this changes anything

[ASuciuX]

Can you a quick benchmark with hyperfine stacks-inspect replay-block ... before merging? I'm curious if this changes anything

• stacks-inspect-new is using the latest commit from this PR
• stacks-inspect-old is using the commit before the first one from this PR 1f5d9d48a6896bc956bd4873279dd5df0e3ac812

hyperfine -w 3 -r 10 "./stacks-inspect-new replay-block ~/mainnet-archive-4-july range 99990 100000" "./stacks-inspect-old replay-block ~/mainnet-archive-4-july range 99990 100000"
Benchmark 1: ./stacks-inspect-new replay-block ~/mainnet-archive-4-july range 99990 100000
  Time (mean ± σ):     10.554 s ±  0.043 s    [User: 9.354 s, System: 1.145 s]
  Range (min … max):   10.502 s … 10.640 s    10 runs

Benchmark 2: ./stacks-inspect-old replay-block ~/mainnet-archive-4-july range 99990 100000
  Time (mean ± σ):     10.606 s ±  0.120 s    [User: 9.414 s, System: 1.137 s]
  Range (min … max):   10.490 s … 10.795 s    10 runs

[blockstack-devops]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.