feat(warpMonitor): Add validator_names label to warp balance monitor metric

[Mo-Hussain]

Description

• Add validator_names, number_of_validators, validator_threshold labels to warp balance monitor metric
• The intention is to supplement the Value at Risk dashboard with this validator set information
• It may also be feasible to create alerts that consider the value at risk, validator set info and thresholds to warn us if the validators set is not secure enough

Backward compatibility

• This will create new time series for the hyperlane_warp_route_token_balance metric as we are adding new labels which will mean that All warp route diffs, the warp routes and xERC20 related dashboards will switch to using a different time series. Whilst not ideal as the graphs will look weird, the downside is not significant

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 311c08e

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.53%. Comparing base (580c966) to head (311c08e).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4917   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.53%   77.53%           
=======================================
  Files         103      103           
  Lines        2110     2110           
  Branches      190      190           
=======================================
  Hits         1636     1636           
  Misses        453      453           
  Partials       21       21           

Components	Coverage Δ
core	87.80% <ø> (ø)
hooks	79.39% <ø> (ø)
isms	83.68% <ø> (ø)
token	91.27% <ø> (ø)
middlewares	79.80% <ø> (ø)

[Mo-Hussain]

We are making the assumption that all warp routes are using the defaultISM

[Mo-Hussain]

Considered filtering out warp routes that do not use the defaultISM using the deploy config or reading on-chain state. The problem with this is that it would exclude routes like Renzo which has a lot of value that we want to account for as its ISM is an aggregation that includes the defaultISM. Discussed this with @nambrot a while back

[nambrot]

I primarily worry about value that uses the default ISM exclusively, so i would be ok with excluding warp routes like renzo for now. Obviously ideally, I would like a dashboard that segments these appropriately