Filter for incorrect sudo calls

[grbIzl]

Description

Incorrect Sudo transactions are filtered out inside TransactionExtension to prevent adding them into the transactions pool.

Related Issue(s)

• Closes #[issue number]

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Other (please describe):

Breaking Change

If this PR introduces a breaking change, please provide a detailed description of the impact and the migration path for existing applications.

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have run ./scripts/fix_rust.sh to ensure my code is formatted and linted correctly
• 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 modules

Screenshots (if applicable)

Please include any relevant screenshots or GIFs that demonstrate the changes made.

Additional Notes

Please provide any additional information or context that may be helpful for reviewers.

[shamil-gadelshin]

Why do we add a sudo dependency to subtensor? Can we add the new tx extension to the runtime code instead?

[grbIzl]

Why do we add a sudo dependency to subtensor? Can we add the new tx extension to the runtime code instead?

Good idea. It will be cleaner in this case.

[l0r1s]

Suggested change

	type Val = Option<T::AccountId>;
	type Val = ();

I get the impression the Val is never used? So may be better to just use unit type.

It is only used if you have a prepare implementation because it is passed as a parameter.

[grbIzl]

I also use it in return type for validate.

[l0r1s]

I also use it in return type for validate.

Yes, but the validate return value is only used in the prepare function and because there is no implementation here, it is not used at all so you can just remove it from Val and from return type of validate

[l0r1s]

small comments