refactor(contracts): deploy MessageProcessor, Tally, and Subsidy contracts after deploy poll

[kittybest]

Description

This is mainly for deploying Poll with MessageProcessor, Tally, and Subsidy(optional) contracts at the same time.

• Deploying those contracts by Factory Contracts (PollFactory, MessageProcessorFactory, TallyFactory, SubsidyFactory)
• To save the size of contract and function call, making Interface Contracts for both Factory Contracts(IMPFactory, IPollFactory, ITallySubsidyFactory) and several smart contracts (IMessageProcessor, IPoll, IVkRegistry)
• Update Natspec of modified contracts and new contracts

Related issue(s)

close #862.

Confirmation

• I have read and understand MACI's contributor guidelines and code of conduct.
• I have read and understand MACI's GitHub processes.
• I have read and understand MACI's testing guide.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for maci-typedoc ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	579a53f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/maci-typedoc/deploys/65a18b093a8d1d00072a6cde
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-949--maci-typedoc.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[ctrlc03]

Great work @kittybest - left few comments here and there

[0xmad]

@kittybest thanks, just few comments and could you update PR title to match commit conventions?

[kittybest]

Why are new factory contracts (MessageProcessorFactory, TallyFactory, SubsidyFactory) needed to achieve this?

Tried to deploy contracts inside pollFactory.deploy function but the compiled pollFactory contract size is too large.

After discussion with ctrl03, factory contracts might be a neat way to deploy another contracts in a contract, and we don't have to worry about the above error.

But if not using interfaces, simply just pass the factories to maci contract and told the factories to deploy contracts, the following errors were shown:

How/why do interface contracts reduce contract size? Or by "size" are you referring to the file size (vs. the contract size)?

Said by ChatGPT ⬇️
Reducing Deployment Gas Costs:
Interfaces help in reducing the deployment gas costs. When interacting with contracts, only the interface needs to be known, not the entire implementation bytecode. This means that developers can deploy smaller contracts that only contain the necessary logic for their specific use case.

But I'm not sure about the deployment costs so far, only know the deployed size and initcode size. We could try to benchmark this.

[ctrlc03]

Thanks for making the changes.
Please change the title to match commit conventions, then there's one comment but it's just natspec related

[0xmad]

@kittybest thanks, just one minor fix.