Remove Web3 in favor of ethersjs

[kuzdogan]

Draft PR

To keep consistency we should remove all Web3.js dependencies and instead use ethers.js.

_{View in Huly HI-548}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 80.00% and project coverage change: -4.85 ⚠️

Comparison is base (42828a3) 78.88% compared to head (44925c9) 74.03%.

❗ Current head 44925c9 differs from pull request most recent head d4397c7. Consider uploading reports for the commit d4397c7 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           staging    #1083      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    78.88%   74.03%   -4.85%     
===========================================
  Files           56       66      +10     
  Lines         1539     2392     +853     
  Branches       271      441     +170     
===========================================
+ Hits          1214     1771     +557     
- Misses         189      391     +202     
- Partials       136      230      +94     

Flag	Coverage Δ
lib-sourcify	65.73% <ø> (?)
server	78.68% <80.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ommon/SourcifyEventManager/SourcifyEventManager.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/monitor/monitor.ts	81.45% <72.72%> (-3.71%)	⬇️
src/monitor/pending-contract.ts	82.60% <100.00%> (ø)
src/server/common.ts	68.75% <100.00%> (-0.95%)	⬇️
...er/controllers/verification/verification.common.ts	80.92% <100.00%> (ø)
src/server/server.ts	75.22% <100.00%> (ø)
src/server/services/RepositoryService.ts	73.46% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[kuzdogan]

Is codecov failing because of insufficient coverage? @marcocastignoli

[marcocastignoli]

Is codecov failing because of insufficient coverage? @marcocastignoli

in lib-sourcify we have a minimum that is:

    "lines": 75,
    "statements": 75,
    "functions": 75,
    "branches": 60

[marcocastignoli]

Did you run the monitor test? Just a few comments, my only real concern is about the getAddress that changes the behavior of the previous function.

[kuzdogan]

The node-16 tests also cover monitor tests no? @marcocastignoli

[marcocastignoli]

The node-16 tests also cover monitor tests no? @marcocastignoli

oh yes, I totally forgot it 😆

[kuzdogan]

Force pushed to clean the code from node-v16 the fix for should run getCreatorTx with regex. Will move that to a new branch.

Please have a short look at the last commit @marcocastignoli
d4397c7