feat: add ExtendSectorExpiration3 to update the existing sectors to 10x QAP

[akaladarshi]

• This PR adds a new method ExtendSectorExpiration3 in the miner actor.
• ExtendSectorExpiration3 updates the existing active sectors to the 10x QAP.
  • Right now we are updating all the active sectors using their ids.
  • (Clarification needed) FIP mentions that this method only needs to update the CC sectors but current methods update all the sectors not just CC sectors (Should this be changed?).
  • ExtendSectorExpiration3Params accepts new_expiration which is an optional value and it allows the method to extended the sectors if set to some value.

This PR is assisted by Claude code (Fable and Opus5)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.44275% with 46 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.17%. Comparing base (1ff11fe) to head (1025a9c).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
actors/miner/src/lib.rs	82.44%	46 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                        Coverage Diff                         @@
##           fix/fips1249-1744-review-fixes    #1775      +/-   ##
==================================================================
- Coverage                           88.22%   88.17%   -0.05%     
==================================================================
  Files                                 140      140              
  Lines                               26555    26817     +262     
==================================================================
+ Hits                                23428    23646     +218     
- Misses                               3127     3171      +44     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
actors/miner/src/types.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
actors/miner/src/lib.rs	82.38% <82.44%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[akaladarshi]

I am continuing the work on the testing and some changes, but It would be great to have a first review on this, so we can align on the required changes.

[rvagg]

needs a FULL_QA_POWER around this, don't ratchet it up for already-upgraded sectors; FIP says "raised at most once"

[rvagg]

Two things here: 1) they're not emitted the deduped list so you could get duplicate events. But more importantly 2) this is a snap event that comes out of PRU3 and isn't appropriate for extensions. So for now let's remove events entirely because I want to have that discussion separately.

[rvagg]

Suggested change

full_qa_power: &StoragePower,

you only use this after you set the flags to make full QA be max QA, so it's not variable, it's just qa_power_max

[rvagg]

@akaladarshi see items in #1763, I think mostly we've got resolution. Getting near-enough for now would be good and if there are outstanding details or tweaks we can do them on top of this later.
If you could rebase it on top of #1778 that would be helpful, there's a lot of changes in there but there shouldn't be many conflicts. But your tests will probably fail because of the switch from deal weight to verified weight as the signal-bearer, and I also merged the two extend_*_sector() methods into a single extend_sector_weights.
In my latest commit in #1763 I added a refactor that's waiting for you to dedupe the work you're doing here, the method replace_sector_records should have the common mechanisms that you're already doing in your traversal so you can just call it; rebase and then use that method and a bunch of your code can disappear.
Also another thing to consider: your upgrade_sector_to_full_power and the existing update_existing_sector_info are two copies of "grant full QA power", they need to agree per the FIP, it's fine to do the work separately but you could consider a small helper to do the common things: flag, pledge, fee. See if that cleans things up at all.