feat(x/ecocredit): add simpler version of send command

[sfishel18]

Description

Closes: #1023

Renames the existing send command to send-bulk, and adds implementation of a simpler send command that can only handle a single transaction of a single credit type but does not require YAML arguments.

---

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 API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building 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

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 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
• manually tested (if applicable)

[sfishel18]

hi @ryanchristo and @technicallyty, this is still WIP so no need for an in-depth review, but i'm somewhat new to Go and to this project so wanted to check in and make sure this is on the right track.

i still need to implement the --retire-to option and add tests.

also, i found my self getting confused with batch in the context of a credit batch and send-batch as the new name for what the send command currently does, so i went with send-bulk instead. but of course it's easy to change.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1213 (af51056) into master (7c2e904) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 95.87%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1213      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.02%   80.09%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         232      232              
  Lines       21533    21626      +93     
==========================================
+ Hits        17232    17321      +89     
- Misses       2988     2990       +2     
- Partials     1313     1315       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
experimental-codecov	80.10% <95.87%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
stable-codecov	75.25% <95.87%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/ecocredit/client/tx.go	82.16% <89.18%> (+0.50%)	⬆️
x/ecocredit/client/testsuite/tx.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[technicallyty]

hey thanks for the contribution! the intent of the issue was to only add a new CLI command (so no additional protobuf messages/rpc methods), and to use the existing MsgSend and Send method inside the command, as they are setup up already to handle any number of credits. Let me know if that makes sense or if theres any question i can answer 😄

[sfishel18]

hey thanks for the contribution! the intent of the issue was to only add a new CLI command (so no additional protobuf messages/rpc methods), and to use the existing MsgSend and Send method inside the command, as they are setup up already to handle any number of credits. Let me know if that makes sense or if theres any question i can answer 😄

ahhh, i see. yeah that totally makes sense. i'll take another crack at it, thanks!

[ryanchristo]

Thanks again for another contribution!

This is looking good. And it looks like you got some experience with proto even if that's not what was needed for this pull request. We just made some changes to the transaction commands so it looks like there will be a few conflicts to resolve. It would be great to add a test as well, which should be pretty straightforward using an existing transaction command test as an example.

[sfishel18]

Thanks again for another contribution!

This is looking good. And it looks like you got some experience with proto even if that's not what was needed for this pull request. We just made some changes to the transaction commands so it looks like there will be a few conflicts to resolve. It would be great to add a test as well, which should be pretty straightforward using an existing transaction command test as an example.

my pleasure! thanks for the detailed feedback, i'll get another rev of this up for review in the next few days

[technicallyty]

great work! just a few nits and then this should be good to go! 🎉

[sfishel18]

great work! just a few nits and then this should be good to go! 🎉

thanks! all comments addressed

[ryanchristo]

This is looking good. Just a couple small changes and then I think it's good to go.

[ryanchristo]

Looks good to me. Thanks again for the contribution @sfishel18 ! 🎉

[technicallyty]

lgtm - thanks!