test(monitoringc): increase code coverage

[giunatale]

Part of #687

What does this PR does?

Increase code coverage for x/monitoringc

note: code coverage is not increased for types/params.go since the module does not have params and the file only contains boilerplate code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #730 (75414ff) into develop (d775e6a) will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 8.33%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #730      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    11.21%   11.34%   +0.12%     
===========================================
  Files          278      278              
  Lines        60780    60780              
===========================================
+ Hits          6817     6894      +77     
+ Misses       53783    53718      -65     
+ Partials       180      168      -12     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/types/ibc.pb.go	0.69% <4.34%> (ø)
pkg/types/consensus_state.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/monitoringc/keeper/handshake.go	100.00% <0.00%> (+3.57%)	⬆️
x/monitoringc/keeper/msg_create_client.go	95.38% <0.00%> (+23.07%)	⬆️
x/monitoringc/types/genesis.go	100.00% <0.00%> (+25.71%)	⬆️
x/monitoringc/keeper/monitoring_packet.go	100.00% <0.00%> (+100.00%)	⬆️
x/monitoringc/keeper/grpc_verified_client_ids.go	100.00% <0.00%> (+100.00%)	⬆️

[lumtis]

👍

For the onrecv test with rewards distributions, I think we should rely on mocks at some point but it would concern a bigger refactoring for the testkeeper package that include mocked keeper dependencies

[giunatale]

👍

For the onrecv test with rewards distributions, I think we should rely on mocks at some point but it would concern a bigger refactoring for the testkeeper package that include mocked keeper dependencies

I agree 100%.