Create a cache for BLS

[matt-o-how]

Creates a BLSCache struct and Py bindings for it.
Also adds a requirements.txt

[socket-security]

No dependency changes detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

👍 No dependency changes detected in pull request

[arvidn]

@matt-o-how I imagine the security warnings comes from just adding the requirements.txt. I don't see the dependency graph for those wheels though. Do we need pluggy on there? I imagine most of them come via pytest though

[coveralls-official]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9081446412

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 165 of 165 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• 128 unchanged lines in 12 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.09%) to 84.163%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
crates/chia-protocol/src/full_node_protocol.rs	2	0.0%
crates/chia-puzzles/src/puzzles/standard.rs	2	93.75%
crates/chia-puzzles/src/puzzles/did.rs	3	76.92%
crates/chia-puzzles/src/puzzles/singleton.rs	5	26.67%
crates/chia-puzzles/src/puzzles/offer.rs	5	44.44%
crates/chia-consensus/src/fast_forward.rs	8	97.99%
crates/chia-protocol/src/chia_protocol.rs	9	0.0%
crates/clvm-utils/src/tree_hash.rs	16	93.47%
crates/chia-protocol/src/wallet_protocol.rs	17	0.0%
wheel/src/api.rs	18	77.92%

Totals
Change from base Build 9011508250:	0.09%
Covered Lines:	12010
Relevant Lines:	14270

---

💛 - Coveralls

[arvidn]

this is a sensitive part of the consensus. we need really thorough tests and fuzzers. I think we should have some benchmarks as well

[arvidn]

do you feel confident the unit tests cover all interesting cases?
A few cases are:
0% cache hit rate
100% cache hit rate
validating a signature of 0 messages and keys
validating a signature of 1 message and key

Can you think if any aspect that might benefit from fuzzing?