ci: add workflow for testing Optimism every night

[Wodann]

This PR adds support for replaying Optimism on-chain blocks to the CLI app and adds a GitHub workflow for nightly replays of the latest Optimism block.

This PR contains a breaking change to the CLI:

• --chain-id was removed as it can be retrieved from the remote
• --chain-type was added, replacing the meaning of -c from --chain-id to --chain-type

Once merged, this PR commit should be cherry-picked and applied to main to ensure that the on.schedule works.

Scheduled workflows will only run on the default branch.

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-when-your-workflow-runs/events-that-trigger-workflows#schedule

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 5805442

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[galargh]

I just had a quick look at the GHA part of the PR, looks nice :)

[galargh]

FYI, https://github.com/actions-rs has been archived last year and the actions repos haven't been updated for quite a while. I think it'd be nice to replace them, but maybe best to do it in a separate PR - I could propose it some time this week if you like the idea.

[Wodann]

As we use this across all of our GitHub actions, it would be good to do it in a follow-up task.

I created one in our backlog: #642

[Xanewok]

On a somewhat related note, do we need actions-rs/cargo (cargo specifically) at all? It seem to be just running cargo and we don't seem to need any cross-compilation or other target specs in general (which could be noisy, I guess), so this might be a regular run step, instead.

[fvictorio]

+1 to what @Xanewok said. I already replaced that action with a plain run step in some workflow some time ago. It's simpler, it's straightforward to understand what it does, and it means one external dependency less.

[fvictorio]

(Off-topic for this PR though)

[Wodann]

Thank you for the suggestions, @galargh! ❤️