signature aggregation: unify into a single function

[tcoratger]

🗒️ Description

@anshalshukla I feel that unifying everything under a single function, rather than distributing it across subfunctions, is clearer and more uniform. Let me know what you think about this.

Since this logic isn't finalized yet, I'd like to avoid multiplying the utility functions to make the specification readable and as compact as possible.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

✅ Checklist

• Ran tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails:

  uvx tox

• Considered adding appropriate tests for the changes.
• Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.

[anshalshukla]

I think otherwise, imo it's easier to read a function handling a specific task then to read a single function doing multiple tasks plus it is easier to write tests as well.

[tcoratger]

I think otherwise, imo it's easier to read a function handling a specific task then to read a single function doing multiple tasks plus it is easier to write tests as well.

Sure no problem, what do you think @unnawut and @g11tech ? If you think the same, then we can close :)

[unnawut]

I feel quite indifferent about this one so yes I guess we can close for now

[unnawut]

@anshalshukla @tcoratger @g11tech Actually I just had a look at the functions separately and I now I vouch for @tcoratger's proposal.

The multiple checks in _pick_from_aggregated_proofs() that raised ValueError could be removed completely if _pick_from_aggregated_proofs() is merged into its caller. A lot of the tests for _pick_from_aggregated_proofs() can also be removed as are only needed because it's a separate function. The function is used by only one caller and very unlikely to have another caller so @tcoratger's proposal is simplifying the spec by quite a lot despite merging to a single function.