feat: add p2p layer health check

[Freyskeyd]

Description

This PR is adding and refactoring how the node will setup and validate it's p2p layer connectivity.
It is a first step to allow nodes to be spawn in any order and gain more confidence on the node status.

Changes

• discovery behaviour will periodically walk the network to find new peers and discover more nodes.
  • The default setting is currently fixed to 60s but will be configurable in another PR
  • The first query is targeting one bootnode, if the query fails, the interval between bootstrap query is set to 5s (also configurable later)
• gossip behaviour will subscribe to different topics and become healthy when at least one is ok
• the handle_event method of the P2P runtime is returning a Result which allows us to report error (and maybe crash) if needed.
• StateMachine in P2P layer represents a struct that hold state projection (to avoid extra calculation), it may be refactored to enum and better integrated with the events but for now it is enough.

Steps

• The P2P layer is starting by listening and exposing its addresses.
• Then the discovery behaviour will initiate bootstrap query targeting the bootnode.
  The connection and result of this query will define if we go or not to the next step.
• The gossipsub behaviour will then trigger the subscribe to the topics
• When succeed the P2P layer is considered healthy and can continue

PR Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added or updated tests that comprehensively prove my change is effective or that my feature works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 76.20042% with 114 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.60%. Comparing base (264c569) to head (69601cf).

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/topos-tce/src/app_context/network.rs	50.42%	58 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-tce/src/lib.rs	14.81%	23 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-p2p/src/behaviour/gossip.rs	85.71%	10 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-p2p/src/runtime/handle_event.rs	86.53%	7 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-p2p/src/runtime/mod.rs	81.08%	7 Missing ⚠️
...es/topos-p2p/src/runtime/handle_event/discovery.rs	94.66%	4 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-test-sdk/src/tce/mod.rs	90.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-p2p/src/event.rs	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-test-sdk/src/tce/p2p.rs	92.30%	1 Missing ⚠️
crates/topos-test-sdk/src/tce/protocol.rs	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #464      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.70%   71.60%   +0.89%     
==========================================
  Files         225      225              
  Lines       12410    12504      +94     
==========================================
+ Hits         8775     8953     +178     
+ Misses       3635     3551      -84     

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

[hadjiszs]

Also saw several occurrences "bootpeers" and "bootnodes" maybe let's try to stick to one or you wanna actually keep distinction for some reason?