Add asset ft issuance operation simulation.

[dzmitryhil]

Description

Add asset ft issuance operation simulation.

Reviewers checklist:

• Try to write more meaningful comments with clear actions to be taken.
• Nit-picking should be unblocking. Focus on core issues.

Authors checklist

• Provide a concise and meaningful description
• Review the code yourself first, before making the PR.
• Annotate your PR in places that require explanation.
• Think and try to split the PR to smaller PR if it is big.

---

This change is 

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 9 of 9 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @ysv)

---

app/simulation_test.go line 96 at r1 (raw file):

// fauxMerkleModeOpt returns a BaseApp option to use a dbStoreAdapter instead of
// an IAVLStore for faster simulation speed.
func fauxMerkleModeOpt(bapp *baseapp.BaseApp) {

minor: Maybe just define this function in the line where it is used

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 71 at r1 (raw file):

}

func (op *OperationFactory) simulateMsgIssue() simtypes.Operation {

There are no arguments here so you may remove the external function

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 125 at r1 (raw file):

}

func (op *OperationFactory) sendMsg(

it seems to be a common function to all the message types, no?

---

x/deterministicgas/types/gas.go line 18 at r1 (raw file):

const (
	fuseGasMultiplier    = 1000

I know you explained this, but I don't remember. Why is it needed?

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

app/simulation_test.go line 96 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

minor: Maybe just define this function in the line where it is used

We will reuse it later since we will have different test types.

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 71 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

There are no arguments here so you may remove the external function

Didn't get that comment

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 125 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

it seems to be a common function to all the message types, no?

For now we don't use it anywther else. So I would keep it here until we have different use case.

---

x/deterministicgas/types/gas.go line 18 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

I know you explained this, but I don't remember. Why is it needed?

The simulation fails since the 10 multiplier is not enough for the withdrawal of the validator commission. We have a task to fix it either by updating the simulation or by updating the withdrawal of the validator commission.

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @ysv)

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 71 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

Didn't get that comment

func simulateMsgIssue(
		r *rand.Rand, app *baseapp.BaseApp, ctx sdk.Context,
		accs []simtypes.Account, chainID string,
	) (simtypes.OperationMsg, []simtypes.FutureOperation, error) {
		senderAcc, _ := simtypes.RandomAcc(r, accs)
		msg, skip := op.randomIssueMsg(ctx, r, senderAcc.Address)
		if skip {
			return simtypes.NoOpMsg(types.ModuleName, TypeMsgIssue, "skip issue"), nil, nil
		}

		err := op.sendMsg(ctx, r, chainID, []cryptotypes.PrivKey{senderAcc.PrivKey}, app, senderAcc.Address, msg)
		if err != nil {
			return simtypes.NoOpMsg(types.ModuleName, msg.Type(), "invalid issuance"), nil, err
		}

		return simtypes.NewOperationMsg(msg, false, "", nil), nil, nil
	}

[ysv]

Reviewed 9 of 9 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @wojtek-coreum)

---

app/app.go line 907 at r1 (raw file):

	// exclude the nft simulation since it is incompatible with the asset nft
	simModules := excludeModules(app.ModuleManager.Modules, []string{nft.ModuleName})

do they mint NFT with invalid IDs for assetNFT ?
I'm wondering how they mint them if there is no such msg in x/nft from cosmos ?

---

app/simulation_test.go line 30 at r1 (raw file):

//
//	`go test ./app -run TestFullAppSimulation -v -Enabled=true \
//		-Verbose=true -NumBlocks=100 -BlockSize=200 -Commit=true -Period=5`.

-BlockSize=200 is it a number of txs ?

-Commit=true - what is the meaning of this ?

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 71 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

func simulateMsgIssue(
		r *rand.Rand, app *baseapp.BaseApp, ctx sdk.Context,
		accs []simtypes.Account, chainID string,
	) (simtypes.OperationMsg, []simtypes.FutureOperation, error) {
		senderAcc, _ := simtypes.RandomAcc(r, accs)
		msg, skip := op.randomIssueMsg(ctx, r, senderAcc.Address)
		if skip {
			return simtypes.NoOpMsg(types.ModuleName, TypeMsgIssue, "skip issue"), nil, nil
		}

		err := op.sendMsg(ctx, r, chainID, []cryptotypes.PrivKey{senderAcc.PrivKey}, app, senderAcc.Address, msg)
		if err != nil {
			return simtypes.NoOpMsg(types.ModuleName, msg.Type(), "invalid issuance"), nil, err
		}

		return simtypes.NewOperationMsg(msg, false, "", nil), nil, nil
	}

agree with Wojtek

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 114 at r1 (raw file):

		// and the fee_collector has the asset_ft_tokens with the SendCommissionRate and BurnRate
		BurnRate: sdkmath.LegacyNewDec(int64(simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, 1000))).QuoInt64(10000),
		// SendCommissionRate: sdkmath.LegacyNewDec(int64(simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, 1000))).QuoInt64(10000),

but I can see that you uncommented burn_rate. Can't we uncomment send commission now also ?
I think if influences the same way, isn't it ?

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

		BurnRate: sdkmath.LegacyNewDec(int64(simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, 1000))).QuoInt64(10000),
		// SendCommissionRate: sdkmath.LegacyNewDec(int64(simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, 1000))).QuoInt64(10000),
		URI:     simtypes.RandStringOfLength(r, types.MaxURILength),

nit: can we generate string up to types.MaxURILength but not always ?

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 129 at r1 (raw file):

	r *rand.Rand,
	chainID string,
	privkeys []cryptotypes.PrivKey,

nit: privKeys ?

---

x/deterministicgas/types/gas.go line 18 at r1 (raw file):

const (
	fuseGasMultiplier    = 1000

leave todo here ?
I think we shouldn't go to prod with this value

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

app/app.go line 907 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

do they mint NFT with invalid IDs for assetNFT ?
I'm wondering how they mint them if there is no such msg in x/nft from cosmos ?

They register them VIA keeper and genesis

---

app/simulation_test.go line 30 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

-BlockSize=200 is it a number of txs ?

-Commit=true - what is the meaning of this ?

You can read about those flags here: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/v0.47.6/x/simulation/client/cli/flags.go#L36

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 71 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

agree with Wojtek

Got you, updated.

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 114 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

but I can see that you uncommented burn_rate. Can't we uncomment send commission now also ?
I think if influences the same way, isn't it ?

By mistake. The simulation doesn't work with the commission.

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit: can we generate string up to types.MaxURILength but not always ?

Didn't get the comment. What do you mean but not always ?

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 129 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit: privKeys ?

Done

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @ysv)

[ysv]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dzmitryhil and @miladz68)

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

Didn't get the comment. What do you mean but not always ?

I mean generate string of size 1 up to types.MaxURILength

But not always generate string of types.MaxURILength size

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dzmitryhil and @miladz68)

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: 7 of 10 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

I mean generate string of size 1 up to types.MaxURILength

But not always generate string of types.MaxURILength size

But that's how it should be, isn't it?

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68 and @ysv)

[ysv]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, 3 of 3 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil and @miladz68)

---

docs/static/openapi.json line 4039 at r4 (raw file):

      }
    },
    "/cosmos/group/v1/group_info/{group_id}": {

is it added to this PR by mistake or it should be here ?

I'm ok but I think it is a mistake

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

But that's how it should be, isn't it?

// RandStringOfLength generates a random string of a particular length

It generates string of length types.MaxURILength each time

But it should be random length

simtypes.RandStringOfLength(r, simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, types.MaxURILength)))

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68 and @ysv)

---

docs/static/openapi.json line 4039 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

is it added to this PR by mistake or it should be here ?

I'm ok but I think it is a mistake

The PR is already there, the squash should remove the duplicate part.

---

x/asset/ft/simulation/operations.go line 115 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

// RandStringOfLength generates a random string of a particular length

It generates string of length types.MaxURILength each time

But it should be random length

simtypes.RandStringOfLength(r, simtypes.RandIntBetween(r, 1, types.MaxURILength)))

Updated.

---

x/deterministicgas/types/gas.go line 18 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

leave todo here ?
I think we shouldn't go to prod with this value

At least not for now :-)

[ysv]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @miladz68)

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, 1 of 1 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @miladz68)