feat!: store proposed chainID before voting finishes

[yaruwangway]

Description

Closes: #1282

The proposed chainID in consumerAddition proposal is saved as key: prefix | proposalID value: ChainID
Manually tested:

 curl http://localhost:1317/interchain_security/ccv/provider/proposed_consumer_chainids
{"proposedChains":[{"chainID":"foochain","proposalID":"1"},{"chainID":"foochain","proposalID":"2"},{"chainID":"standalone-1","proposalID":"3"}]}%

 interchain-security-pd query provider proposed-consumer-chains --home test -o json
{"proposedChains":[{"chainID":"foochain","proposalID":"1"},{"chainID":"foochain","proposalID":"2"},{"chainID":"standalone-1","proposalID":"3"}]}

---

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 state-machine breaking change (i.e., requires coordinated upgrade)
• Confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
• Targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• Provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• Followed the guidelines for building SDK 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
• If this PR is library API breaking, bump the go.mod version string of the repo, and follow through on a new major release for both the consumer and provider

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 this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR confirmed migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
• 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

[yaruwangway]

Hi, @MSalopek , this PR is not state breaking right ? even though there is a new type of kv.
key is prefix | len(chainID) | chainID | propsalID value: chainID
thanks!

[yaruwangway]

Requested some changes. Will add more context

EDIT: Also, the e2e test that checks this value is failing. Can you address that?

in the voteGovProposalAction, the state of proposal status is PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED, so the proposedConsumerChain state cannot be added here as nonempty. I moved proposedConsumerChain to submit proposal action.

FAILED action voteGovProposalAction
"actual state"
{provi: {ValBalances:                    {alice: 9500000000,
                                          bob:   9500000000},
         Proposals:                      {1: {Deposit:       10000001,
                                              Chain:         "consu",
                                              SpawnTime:     0,
                                              InitialHeight: {RevisionNumber: 0,
                                                              RevisionHeight: 1},
                                              Status:        "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED"}},
         ProposedConsumerChains:         [],
         ValPowers:                      nil,
         RepresentativePowers:           nil,
         Params:                         nil,
         Rewards:                        nil,
         ConsumerChains:                 nil,
         AssignedKeys:                   nil,
         ProviderKeys:                   nil,
         ConsumerChainQueueSizes:        nil,
         GlobalSlashQueueSize:           nil,
         RegisteredConsumerRewardDenoms: nil}}
"model state"

[yaruwangway]

Nice work @yaruwangway. I approve the overall logic. See my comments below.

Also, the PR doesn't fix #1282. For that you need to add an if condition when handling a key assignment message.

Hi @marius, if you meant to check key in use when assigning keys ? (need chainIDs from providerKeeper.GetAllPendingConsumerAdditionProps, providerKeeper.GetAllConsumerChains(ctx) and providerKeeper.GetProposedChains ) it will be in this PR. #1279