Allow zero precision for ft tokens

[miladz68]

Description

Allow zero precision for ft tokens

Reviewers checklist:

• Try to write more meaningful comments with clear actions to be taken.
• Nit-picking should be unblocking. Focus on core issues.

Authors checklist

• Provide a concise and meaningful description
• Review the code yourself first, before making the PR.
• Annotate your PR in places that require explanation.
• Think and try to split the PR to smaller PR if it is big.

---

This change is 

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 35.28%. Comparing base (ab054cc) to head (00d2061).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #787      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   35.26%   35.28%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         171      171              
  Lines       47469    47481      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits        16742    16754      +12     
  Misses      27482    27482              
  Partials     3245     3245              

Flag	Coverage Δ
coreum	32.03% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
coreum-integration-tests-modules	16.80% <ø> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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

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

[ysv]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @wojtek-coreum)

---

integration-tests/modules/assetft_test.go line 117 at r1 (raw file):

// TestAssetFTIssue tests issue functionality of fungible tokens.
func TestAssetFTIssue_ZeroPrecision(t *testing.T) {

I suggest to merge this test with TestAssetFTIssue.
I think we should move towards less code in our integration tests because they might become unmaintainable at some point.

you can change it to table test with 2 cases.
input args for tests is &assetfttypes.MsgIssue and output to assert (the only thing I find different) is expectedMetadata := banktypes.Metadata. Everything else seems to be same

---

x/asset/ft/keeper/keeper.go line 320 at r1 (raw file):

	// we are force to have single entry in denom units and also Display must be the
	// same as Base.
	if precision == 0 {

nit: maybe it makes sense to write unit-tests for this part if possible

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

x/asset/ft/keeper/keeper.go line 320 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit: maybe it makes sense to write unit-tests for this part if possible

agree

[miladz68]

Reviewable status: 2 of 5 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @wojtek-coreum and @ysv)

---

integration-tests/modules/assetft_test.go line 117 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

I suggest to merge this test with TestAssetFTIssue.
I think we should move towards less code in our integration tests because they might become unmaintainable at some point.

you can change it to table test with 2 cases.
input args for tests is &assetfttypes.MsgIssue and output to assert (the only thing I find different) is expectedMetadata := banktypes.Metadata. Everything else seems to be same

Done.

---

x/asset/ft/keeper/keeper.go line 320 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

agree

Done.

[ysv]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @miladz68 and @wojtek-coreum)

---

x/asset/ft/keeper/keeper_test.go line 155 at r2 (raw file):

}

func TestKeeper_Issue_ZeroPrecision(t *testing.T) {

sorry, my comment probably confused you.
I meant unit-tests for token issuance generally not only for Precision: 0, case

Code quote:

TestKeeper_Issue_ZeroPrecision

[miladz68]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @wojtek-coreum and @ysv)

---

x/asset/ft/keeper/keeper_test.go line 155 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

sorry, my comment probably confused you.
I meant unit-tests for token issuance generally not only for Precision: 0, case

I still don't get it, we already have tests for token issuance both in unit and integration tests.

[ysv]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @wojtek-coreum)

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @wojtek-coreum)