feat(app)!: cosmos SDK v0.46 upgrade

[aleem1314]

Description

Closes: #857

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[aleem1314]

../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/table.go:19:18: undefined: types.StoreKey
../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/table.go:56:38: undefined: types.StoreKey
../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/table.go:97:18: undefined: types.StoreKey
../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/orm.go:32:18: undefined: types.StoreKey
../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/orm.go:122:17: undefined: types.StoreKey
../../../../pkg/mod/github.com/regen-network/regen-ledger/orm@v1.0.0-beta1/orm.go:139:40: undefined: types.StoreKey

Looks like we are still using regen/orm in ecocredit module.I raised a PR #1257 to update regen/orm to use SDK v0.46. I'll update this PR once we tag another regen/orm release.

[ryanchristo]

Looks like we are still using regen/orm in ecocredit module.I raised a PR #1257 to update regen/orm to use SDK v0.46. I'll update this PR once we tag another regen/orm release.

We should avoid adding back in and updating regen-ledger/orm and fully migrate to cosmos-sdk/orm. Any areas we are still using regen-ledger/orm should be updated to the latest cosmos-sdk/orm.

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/releases/tag/orm%2Fv1.0.0-alpha.12

[ryanchristo]

If v3 ecocredit migrations are a blocker because of the orm module dependency on sdk version v0.45, I would say uncomment or remove the migrations for now and maybe we can further discuss on our next architecture call. The extra work to support v3 to v5 or later seems unnecessary but it is the right idea.

I think given we are not aware of any other chains running v3, our ecocredit api was tagged v1alpha1, and sdk versioning is the main issue here, we don't need to go through the extra trouble to support upgrades directly from v3 to v5 or later.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1244 (9aaa8d3) into master (682e4de) will decrease coverage by 0.23%.
The diff coverage is 65.29%.

❗ Current head 9aaa8d3 differs from pull request most recent head fafe166. Consider uploading reports for the commit fafe166 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1244      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.45%   77.22%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files         221      213       -8     
  Lines       16120    15393     -727     
==========================================
- Hits        12486    11887     -599     
+ Misses       2620     2597      -23     
+ Partials     1014      909     -105     

Flag	Coverage Δ
experimental-codecov	77.22% <65.29%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
stable-codecov	77.22% <65.29%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
app/export.go	10.20% <0.00%> (+0.40%)	⬆️
app/regen/cmd/genaccounts.go	15.15% <0.00%> (-0.98%)	⬇️
app/regen/cmd/testnet.go	16.79% <0.00%> (ø)
types/module/server/root_module_key.go	11.76% <ø> (+5.88%)	⬆️
x/data/client/testsuite/grpc.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
x/data/msg_anchor.go	80.00% <ø> (ø)
x/data/msg_attest.go	60.00% <ø> (ø)
x/data/msg_define_resolver.go	80.00% <ø> (ø)
x/data/msg_register_resolver.go	81.81% <ø> (ø)
x/data/server/server.go	71.42% <ø> (ø)
... and 61 more

[aleem1314]

Marking as R4R.

These two updates pending, maybe we can add them in follow-up PRs.

1. #10977 Now every cosmos message protobuf definition must be extended with a cosmos.msg.v1.signer option to signal the signer fields in a language agnostic way.
2. Should add support for Transaction Tips and SIGN_MODE_DIRECT_AUX?

For first update, I'm receiving following error when I add option (cosmos.msg.v1.signer) = "curator"; annotation to txns.

regen/ecocredit/v1/tx.proto:284:10:message regen.ecocredit.v1.MsgSend: unknown extension cosmos.msg.v1.signer
regen/ecocredit/v1/tx.proto:329:10:message regen.ecocredit.v1.MsgRetire: unknown extension cosmos.msg.v1.signer
regen/ecocredit/v1/tx.proto:352:10:message regen.ecocredit.v1.MsgCancel: unknown extension cosmos.msg.v1.signer
regen/ecocredit/v1/tx.proto:370:10:message regen.ecocredit.v1.MsgUpdateClassAdmin: unknown extension cosmos.msg.v1.signer

I'm using the same docker image as in 0.46 (v0.7) and buf.gen.gogo.yaml is the same.

[technicallyty]

option (cosmos.msg.v1.signer)

only thing i could possibly think of is a missing import? import "cosmos/msg/v1/msg.proto"; i know robert had a similar issue in the cosmos core dev discord: https://discord.com/channels/669268347736686612/984437601857568768/1002138288250957834

[ryanchristo]

Nice work! Looks good to me aside from a few minor changes, in particular the passing of the account prefix rather than the bond denom to the account keeper.

[ryanchristo]

Nice work! One item that still needs to be addressed in app.go (we are still using uregen rather than the bech32 account prefix). Otherwise, looks good to me. I opened followup issues for the two items you mentioned above: #1330 and #1331.