feat(rust/rbac-registration): Introduce Cip0134UriSet type

[stanislav-tkach]

Description

• The Cip0134UriSet type was added.
• Option<Vec<_>> fields of the Cip509RbacMetadata structure were changed to Vec<_>.
• Error handling becomes stricter.

Related Issue(s)

Closes #104.

Description of Changes

I have renamed Cip0134UriList to Cip0134UriSet because I don't think that "list" is a proper description for the current structure.

This pull request should be merged into the rbac-registration-improvements branch instead of main. The goal is to have separate smaller incremental changes that can be reviewed together in a separate pull request (from rbac-registration-improvements to main).

Please confirm the following checks

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream module

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 230/230}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/230}$ |

[bkioshn]

I feel like this certificate_uris is too specific for Cip509Metadata (specific to role 0)
Might be useful to add it in RegistrationChain.
What do you think?

[stanislav-tkach]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but certificates be present in the next registrations?

[stanislav-tkach]

DIscussed: we decided to proceed with this approach for now because it isn't going to be merged directly to the main branch. But we will consider this again during the final review.

[bkioshn]

LGTM🥳

[bkioshn]

Sorry for miscommunication, storing multiple violate the CDDL spec, so only 1 is allowed

[stanislav-tkach]

I think you were clear, perhaps it is a misunderstanding from my side. What I wanted to say with this comment is that it is possible to produce metadata with multiple different types, but it indeed would violate the specification.