refactor(x/ecocredit): move empty string validation into utils.go

[wgwz]

Description

Ref: #1245

---

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)

[ryanchristo]

Thanks for the contribution! Looks like a good start.

The issue was not very specific so my apologies. Although the parse error previously being used in the utility functions is defined in the ecocredit module, it is registered as an sdk error.

ErrParseFailure        = sdkerrors.Register(ModuleName, 2, "parse error")

I think this error still makes sense to use for invalid format, and we should avoid using sdkerrors.ErrInvalidRequest within the utility functions given the utility functions may be used outside the context of a request.

I've added a note to an issue proposing guidelines for better use of sdk errors, which is currently being used to track examples until those guidelines are written (#1147 (comment)). I left an example in the issue and some initial review comments below to point out how parse error and invalid request might be used together.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1317 (c065e89) into master (cb68013) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1317      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.50%   77.56%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         221      220       -1     
  Lines       16160    16009     -151     
==========================================
- Hits        12524    12417     -107     
+ Misses       2621     2589      -32     
+ Partials     1015     1003      -12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
experimental-codecov	77.56% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
stable-codecov	?

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/ecocredit/basket/msg_put.go	95.23% <ø> (-0.42%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/msg_bridge_receive.go	94.00% <ø> (-0.45%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/types_class.go	11.11% <ø> (+2.02%)	⬆️
x/ecocredit/marketplace/msg_buy_direct.go	96.87% <ø> (-0.35%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/marketplace/msg_sell.go	96.55% <ø> (-0.23%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/basket/msg_create.go	95.83% <100.00%> (-0.60%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/msg_bridge.go	88.00% <100.00%> (-0.89%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/msg_create_batch.go	92.00% <100.00%> (-0.60%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/msg_create_class.go	93.33% <100.00%> (-0.42%)	⬇️
x/ecocredit/core/msg_create_project.go	87.50% <100.00%> (-2.50%)	⬇️
... and 14 more

[wgwz]

hey @ryanchristo 👋 i made another pass at this and pushed a new commit. i have still only done the refactoring work for x/ecocredit/core/utils.go. it should be closer now, LMK what you think, thanks!

[ryanchristo]

This looks good to me. The added scenario is a duplicate but otherwise I think this is ready if you want to open a separate pull request to address basket and marketplace utils.

[wgwz]

@ryanchristo I do like the idea of merging this and then addressing the other locations in separate PRs. because i may not have the time this week to handle the others. should we open new separate issues? or favor keeping #1245 open and adding a todo list?

[ryanchristo]

Looks good to me. Thanks for the contribution!

[technicallyty]

👍🏻