ref: Privatize and Rename State Fields

[0xNeshi]

Resolves #447, resolves #386

PR Checklist

• Tests
• Documentation
• Changelog

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for contracts-stylus canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	ee4302d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/contracts-stylus/deploys/679244950a90ed0008e96399

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.38554% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.6%. Comparing base (e005e5b) to head (ee4302d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
contracts/src/finance/vesting_wallet.rs	80.0%	2 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/token/erc20/extensions/metadata.rs	0.0%	2 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/token/erc721/extensions/metadata.rs	33.3%	2 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/utils/metadata.rs	0.0%	2 Missing ⚠️
...ontracts/src/token/erc721/extensions/enumerable.rs	94.4%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
contracts/src/access/control.rs	98.0% <100.0%> (-0.1%)	⬇️
contracts/src/access/ownable.rs	93.0% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/access/ownable_two_step.rs	98.4% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/token/erc1155/extensions/burnable.rs	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...racts/src/token/erc1155/extensions/metadata_uri.rs	72.0% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/token/erc1155/extensions/supply.rs	80.8% <100.0%> (ø)
...tracts/src/token/erc1155/extensions/uri_storage.rs	98.0% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/token/erc1155/mod.rs	96.8% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/token/erc20/extensions/burnable.rs	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/token/erc20/extensions/capped.rs	76.9% <100.0%> (ø)
... and 18 more

[bidzyyys]

Looks much better!

[qalisander]

Love the name of the pr:D May be postpone unit test wide refactors? This pr can have huge merge conflicts..

[0xNeshi]

May be postpone unit test wide refactors? This pr can have huge merge conflicts..

This would mean we either ignore all of the motsu tests (as they wouldn't compile), or that we completely close this PR 😕

We could remove field renames from this PR, and then open a new PR with those changes once your PR is merged.
@bidzyyys @qalisander how do you propose we approach this?

[bidzyyys]

IMHO we should merge this PR as it is finished. I do not believe we will have huge merge conflicts, only removing prefixes (_) from contract storage fields. I can handle solving this merge changes @qalisander.