refactor: BitcoinRegtestController RPC roll out (STEP 2)

[fdefelici]

Description

This is the second PR in the roll-out of the new Bitcoin RPC client within BitcoinRegtestController.

In this PR, the following methods (mainly used for testing) have been migrated to use the new client:

• BitcoinRegtestController::invalidate_block(..)
• BitcoinRegtestController::get_block_hash(..)
• BitcoinRegtestController::get_raw_transaction(..)

Notes
This need #6394 to get merged first, to have cargo hack check and integration tests properly working
#6394 has been merged

Applicable issues

• fixes refactor: roll out new RPC client in BitcoinRegtestController #6387

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

• Test coverage for new or modified code paths
• Changelog is updated
• Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
• New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo
• New integration test(s) added to bitcoin-tests.yml

[jcnelson]

Bitcoin RPCs should never, ever panic. More generally, networking code should never, ever panic. Not only are network-related errors often transient (e.g. bad connection), but also it makes runtime panics weaponizable to DoS the node.

[fdefelici]

Bitcoin RPCs should never, ever panic. More generally, networking code should never, ever panic. Not only are network-related errors often transient (e.g. bad connection), but also it makes runtime panics weaponizable to DoS the node.

As explained here #6388 (comment), I preserved the same behaviour as the previous code (scoped with #[cfg(test)]).
However, I'm fine to change this behaviour too, while refactoring RPC calls

[fdefelici]

I've merged PR #6394 (Step1), so this PR is effectively ready.

To summarize the open points:

• As discussed in the Nakasync, we’re retaining the existing “panic” strategy in test code.
• Feedback from @jferrant is needed on this discussion: refactor: BitcoinRegtestController RPC roll out (STEP 2) #6388 (comment)
• Feedback from @jude is needed on this discussion: refactor: BitcoinRegtestController RPC roll out (STEP 2) #6388 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 62.50000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.48%. Comparing base (d22bad7) to head (487f280).
⚠️ Report is 54 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...-node/src/burnchains/bitcoin_regtest_controller.rs	62.50%	6 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (74.48%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6388      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    71.24%   74.48%   +3.24%     
===========================================
  Files          556      556              
  Lines       351138   351117      -21     
===========================================
+ Hits        250171   261544   +11373     
+ Misses      100967    89573   -11394     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...-node/src/burnchains/bitcoin_regtest_controller.rs	73.29% <62.50%> (+4.03%)	⬆️

... and 354 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d22bad7...487f280. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

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.