editoast: adapt edition endpoint using zadd

[SarrahElm]

Close #12432

Firstly, I adapt InfraCache to store the infra_version version of the current infrastructure.
Then, I adapt the apply_edit function (called by the edition endpoint) to store cache operations in valkey using zadd, as follows :

• score -> the latest infra_version version
• key -> infra_patches.{OSRD_VERSION}.{infra_id}
• value -> List of cache operations

[flomonster]

LGTM. Therefore, I found a big issue in our conception.

@Khoyo While testing this PR I found out that we can not push duplicate values with different zindex.

Here an example where I've edited a detector position from 2820 -> 2821 -> 2820 -> 2819. We only have three values instead of four.

1) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2820.0}}}]"
2) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2821.0}}}]"
3) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2819.0}}}]"

[hamz2a]

LGTM, thank you!

[Khoyo]

LGTM. Therefore, I found a big issue in our conception.

@Khoyo While testing this PR I found out that we can not push duplicate values with different zindex.

Here an example where I've edited a detector position from 2820 -> 2821 -> 2820 -> 2819. We only have three values instead of four.

1) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2820.0}}}]"
2) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2821.0}}}]"
3) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2819.0}}}]"

Indeed. We could wrap those in a struct with a 64 bit nonce to avoid that behavior, wdyt?

[flomonster]

LGTM. Therefore, I found a big issue in our conception.
@Khoyo While testing this PR I found out that we can not push duplicate values with different zindex.
Here an example where I've edited a detector position from 2820 -> 2821 -> 2820 -> 2819. We only have three values instead of four.

1) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2820.0}}}]"
2) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2821.0}}}]"
3) "[{\"Update\":{\"Detector\":{\"obj_id\":\"DB0\",\"track\":\"TB0\",\"position\":2819.0}}}]"

Indeed. We could wrap those in a struct with a 64 bit nonce to avoid that behavior, wdyt?

Sounds good to me.

[flomonster]

LGTM, thanks for the fix 👍