Add occ todos / comments (#317)

This adds some comments with some useful code pointers for existing
logic and discussing future OCC work

NA

baseapp/baseapp.go

@@ -957,6 +957,7 @@ func (app *BaseApp) runTx(ctx sdk.Context, mode runTxMode, tx sdk.Tx, checksum [
 			storeAccessOpEvents := msCache.GetEvents()
 			accessOps := ctx.TxMsgAccessOps()[acltypes.ANTE_MSG_INDEX]
 
+			// TODO: (occ) This is an example of where we do our current validation. Note that this validation operates on the declared dependencies for a TX / antehandler + the utilized dependencies, whereas the validation
 			missingAccessOps := ctx.MsgValidator().ValidateAccessOperations(accessOps, storeAccessOpEvents)
 			if len(missingAccessOps) != 0 {
 				for op := range missingAccessOps {
@@ -1106,6 +1107,8 @@ func (app *BaseApp) runMsgs(ctx sdk.Context, msgs []sdk.Msg, mode runTxMode) (*s
 		storeAccessOpEvents := msgMsCache.GetEvents()
 		accessOps := ctx.TxMsgAccessOps()[i]
 		missingAccessOps := ctx.MsgValidator().ValidateAccessOperations(accessOps, storeAccessOpEvents)
+		// TODO: (occ) This is where we are currently validating our per message dependencies,
+		// whereas validation will be done holistically based on the mvkv for OCC approach
 		if len(missingAccessOps) != 0 {
 			for op := range missingAccessOps {
 				ctx.Logger().Info((fmt.Sprintf("eventMsgName=%s Missing Access Operation:%s ", eventMsgName, op.String())))

store/cachekv/store.go

@@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ func (store *Store) iterator(start, end []byte, ascending bool) types.Iterator {
 	defer store.mtx.Unlock()
 	// TODO: (occ) Note that for iterators, we'll need to have special handling (discussed in RFC) to ensure proper validation
 
+	// TODO: (occ) Note that for iterators, we'll need to have special handling (discussed in RFC) to ensure proper validation
+
 	var parent, cache types.Iterator
 
 	if ascending {