feat: removal message

[aljo242]

Closes CON-1749

• adds notion of ValidationHooks
• adds Options configuration to keeper instantiation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 61.11111% with 42 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 57.01%. Comparing base (b11a57b) to head (846cd22).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
x/marketmap/keeper/keeper.go	70.37%	6 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
x/marketmap/types/hooks.go	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
x/marketmap/keeper/options.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
x/oracle/keeper/hooks.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
x/marketmap/types/codec.go	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
x/marketmap/keeper/msg_server.go	84.61%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
x/marketmap/types/errors.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
x/marketmap/types/msg.go	84.61%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #772   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   57.01%   57.01%           
=======================================
  Files         208      210    +2     
  Lines       11626    11718   +92     
=======================================
+ Hits         6628     6681   +53     
- Misses       4394     4429   +35     
- Partials      604      608    +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zrbecker]

I assume we are only succeeded if all markets to be removed exist, and are successfully removed which is why we don't need a response, maybe.

We could support making this message idempotent where we instead succeed if either the market does not exist, or was successfully removed. In that case it might make sense to return how many markets were actually removed.

[aljo242]

Updated to return []string which is the array of markets that were successfully removed.

[zrbecker]

There is a bit of asymmetry here since we typically check for Enabled markets for updating in the ante handlers, but here are making it part of policy for all integrations.

Perhaps we should call this method "DeleteMarket", and write something like,

for _, handler := k.deleteMarketHandlers {
  if err := handler(ctx, market); err != nil {
    return err
  }
}
return k.markets.Remove(ctx, types.TickerString(tickerStr))

We can define a DefaultDeleteMarketHandlers() somewhere and use that to initialize the keeper.

Not sure if handler, verifier, validator is better.

This also ensures if we want to add more complex logic later for a specific integration, we can do so without changing connect.

[aljo242]

Added the notion of ValidationHooks which can be configured for the keeper.

Right now just passing them via options at instantiation which keeps the NewKeeper function signature the same

[zrbecker]

If this hook errors, does the message fail?

Could we check if the removed market was enabled here, and just fail?

[aljo242]

Yes if these hooks fail, the message would fail