Currently, anyone can registrar a code that exceeds the code size limit
when performing the upgrade from the registrar. This PR fixes that and
adds a new test to cover this.

cc @bkchr @eskimor

Closes #2225.

- [x] tests
- [x] fix todos
- [x] fix duplicates
- [x] make the check part of `potential_spam` 
- [x] fix a bug with votes insertion
- [x] guide changes
- [x] docs

---------

Co-authored-by: Tsvetomir Dimitrov <[email protected]>

Initial implementation for the plan discussed here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/701
Built on top of https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/1178
v0: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/pull/7554,

## Overall idea

When approval-voting checks a candidate and is ready to advertise the
approval, defer it in a per-relay chain block until we either have
MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT candidates to sign or a candidate has stayed
MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS in the queue, in both cases we sign what
candidates we have available.

This should allow us to reduce the number of approvals messages we have
to create/send/verify. The parameters are configurable, so we should
find some values that balance:

- Security of the network: Delaying broadcasting of an approval
shouldn't but the finality at risk and to make sure that never happens
we won't delay sending a vote if we are past 2/3 from the no-show time.
- Scalability of the network: MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT = 1 &
MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS =0, is what we have now and we know from
the measurements we did on versi, it bottlenecks
approval-distribution/approval-voting when increase significantly the
number of validators and parachains
- Block storage: In case of disputes we have to import this votes on
chain and that increase the necessary storage with
MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT * CandidateHash per vote. Given that
disputes are not the normal way of the network functioning and we will
limit MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT in the single digits numbers, this
should be good enough. Alternatively, we could try to create a better
way to store this on-chain through indirection, if that's needed.

## Other fixes:
- Fixed the fact that we were sending random assignments to
non-validators, that was wrong because those won't do anything with it
and they won't gossip it either because they do not have a grid topology
set, so we would waste the random assignments.
- Added metrics to be able to debug potential no-shows and
mis-processing of approvals/assignments.

## TODO:
- [x] Get feedback, that this is moving in the right direction. @ordian
@sandreim @eskimor @burdges, let me know what you think.
- [x] More and more testing.
- [x]  Test in versi.
- [x] Make MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT &
MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_WAIT_MILLIS a parachain host configuration.
- [x] Make sure the backwards compatibility works correctly
- [x] Make sure this direction is compatible with other streams of work:
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/635 &
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/742


- [x] Final versi burn-in before merging

---------

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>

Hey guys, as discussed I've changed the name to a more general one
`PvfExecKind`, is this good or too general?
Creating this as a draft, I still have to fix the tests.

Closes #1585

Kusama address: FkB6QEo8VnV3oifugNj5NeVG3Mvq1zFbrUu4P5YwRoe5mQN

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Marcin S <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Marcin S <[email protected]>

- Async-backing related primitives are stable `primitives::v6`
- Async-backing API is now part of `api_version(7)`
- It's enabled on Rococo and Westend runtimes

---------

Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <[email protected]>