feat(x/ecocredit): migrate basket params to orm

[aleem1314]

Description

Ref: #729

---

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)

[ryanchristo]

Looks good. I opened #1359 to further discuss an alternative approach. Essentially this would be the same approach to adding and removing allowed denoms. In a way, these are allowed fees for basket creation but I don't think we need to rename the parameter to include "allowed". We can use this for now and further discuss if we want to consider more granular updates.

Protolint has a rule that requires repeated fields to be plural. I think this is something we want to follow. Protolint is passing because we currently ignore this rule for the files changed given we don't want to introduce breaking changes to the current version but we could make those changes for new messages. I only suggested comments for pluralizing the list of fees in the proto but I think we should make those changes and make sure those changes are reflected throughout.

[ryanchristo]

The use of the singleton table mentioned in #962 (comment) was if we wanted to only have one fee rather than a list of fees. This is something I was previously advocating for and we have been going back and forth on but I realized later that this might be why you chose to use a singleton table in this pull request but for the list of fees. Also for reference: #1165.

[ryanchristo]

I still think this approach is ok for now given as I never really got an answer from others on only supporting one fee, so maybe best not to change it. If we do want to change to only one fee option or no fee, then we can address as part of #1359. I'll add an option to support a single fee to the proposal.

[technicallyty]

LGTM! nice work

[ryanchristo]

tACK with some nits.

[ryanchristo]

Also opened #1363