Refactor CLIContext to allow multi-chain verifiers

[alexanderbez]

• Remove global verifier
• Remove verifier home (unused)
• Add chain ID and home dir to CLIContext
• Implement CreateVerifier which any CLIContext may call
• Each verifier directory will exist under {home}/{chainID}/.lite_verifier

Example:

// main or parent chain (chain as if you're running without IBC)
mainCtx := context.NewCLIContext()

// connecting IBC chain
sideCtx := context.NewCLIContext().
  WithChainID(sideChainID).
  WithNodeURI(sideChainNodeURI) // or .WithClient(...)

sideCtx = sideCtx.WithVerifier(
  context.CreateVerifier(sideCtx, context.DefaultVerifierCacheSize),
)

Note: All contexts share the same home directory for a CLI binary (i.e. there is no WithHomeDir).

closes: #5116

---

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.

• Wrote tests

• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)

• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md

• Re-reviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5136 into master will increase coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is 39.28%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5136      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   54.89%   54.98%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         296      297       +1     
  Lines       18232    18224       -8     
==========================================
+ Hits        10009    10020      +11     
+ Misses       7486     7466      -20     
- Partials      737      738       +1

[fedekunze]

One comment which can be resolved by updating the comment and godoc.

[fedekunze]

Not sure if this is necessary, the description on the PR suffices imho

[alexanderbez]

True, but how often do people read PRs 😄

[AdityaSripal]

Can we have one case with expectErr = false?

[alexanderbez]

Looking at the Tendermint verifier code, unfortunately, I think that will require a running chain. So I don't think it's possible :-/

[jackzampolin]

A couple of Q's:

• Should this be merged into @mossid 's PR which contains all the IBC work so that gaiacli will be able to handle multiple verifiers there?
• Is there a follow up PR required to integrate this into this the IBC demo?

[alexanderbez]

@jackzampolin to answer your questions, I believe this PR should generally be supported and merged into master (if that makes sense). However, what I will do is make an accompanying PR into joon's joon/ibc-sdk-interface branch which Gaia uses.