Remove profile duplicated validation

[leobragaz]

Description

This PR remove the double validation made inside Profile Update() function leaving only that
inside the keeper Validate().
Closes #548

Checklist

• Targeted PR against correct branch.
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Wrote unit tests.
• Wrote integration tests (simulation & CLI).
• Updated the documentation.
• Added an entry to the CHANGELOG.md file.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #557 (9d672d4) into master (fa26783) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #557      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.84%   82.83%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          91       91              
  Lines        5480     5477       -3     
==========================================
- Hits         4540     4537       -3     
  Misses        737      737              
  Partials      203      203              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/profiles/types/account.go	56.16% <ø> (-0.89%)	⬇️
x/profiles/keeper/msgs_server_profile.go	82.22% <0.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fa26783...9d672d4. Read the comment docs.

[dadamu]

LGTM

[RiccardoM]

Re-checking this, to be honest I'm not sure whether we should have this removed inside the Update function or not. Ideally, that function can be used by third party developers as well, and those checks are very quick to perform. For this reason, I don't think there's the necessity to remove it at all. We could simply leave it here. Before jumping to the conclusions, though, is it possible to have some data? Like, could we measure the impact on performances that this double check has? I think this should be farily easy to do and it could give us a nice idea whether it is worth or not removing the check.

[leobragaz]

@RiccardoM I've performed a bench test on Update() and these are the results:

with validation:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/desmos-labs/desmos/x/profiles/types
BenchmarkUpdate

BenchmarkUpdate-1   	  296853	      3937 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-2   	  310422	      3490 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-3   	  308560	      3546 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-4   	  311792	      3612 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-5   	  312789	      3666 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-6   	  286815	      3789 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-7   	  293988	      4159 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-8   	  311395	      3671 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-9   	  313987	      3518 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-10        320106	      3681 ns/op

without validation:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/desmos-labs/desmos/x/profiles/types
BenchmarkUpdate

BenchmarkUpdate-1   	 3203461	       380 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-2   	 3068451	       378 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-3   	 3199720	       367 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-4   	 3229094	       381 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-5   	 3226158	       372 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-6   	 3105884	       386 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-7   	 3091993	       370 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-8   	 3018584	       386 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-9   	 3113236	       374 ns/op
BenchmarkUpdate-10       3172558	       376 ns/op

Thoughts?

[RiccardoM]

@bragaz Can you please push the bechmark test code? It's hard to understand what those results mean without having a look at the code

[leobragaz]

@RiccardoM yeah sure, I forgot to push it

[RiccardoM]

@bragaz After watching at the benchmarks and the code, I think it's safe to delete he Validate from within the Update method. Could you please update the Update documentation telling that it does not validate the updated profile, and this should be done before storing the profile itself? Just as a precaution for external developers

[leobragaz]

@RiccardoM done