R4R: x/gov Get Vote(s)/Deposit(s) Updates

[alexanderbez]

• Fix broken proposal ID tags. It was being amino encoded before which did not allow for querying.
• Add Action tag to voting and deposit handlers
• Exposed tx searching function (SearchTxs)

closes: #2879
closes: #2880

/cc @johnmcdowall

---

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.

• Wrote tests

• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)

• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #

• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3091 into develop will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 43.75%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3091      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    54.31%   54.31%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          136      136              
  Lines        10210    10212       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits          5546     5547       +1     
- Misses        4326     4327       +1     
  Partials       338      338

[jackzampolin]

This looks GREAT and lots to like on the implementation here. The one thing I would request is to expand the governance LCD tests to test these cases (once a proposal passes, does the data come back properly for votes and deposits). Is that possible?

[alexanderbez]

@jackzampolin unfortunately I do not have any direct or good way of testing this. Our LCD tests are pretty rigid in that they all use the same InitializeTestLCD. I've tried modifying params but to no avail.

Feel free to take a stab at it?

[jackzampolin]

Ok added an issue to track that: #3094. This PR gets a 👍 from me now

[fedekunze]

Awesome ! Some comments and then we should be ok for merging

[alexanderbez]

@fedekunze addressed your comments.

[fedekunze]

shouldn't we get the proposal and query the deposit tx if it's not on deposit or voting period ? I mean, shouldn't we have an if...else around res, err := cliCtx.QueryWithData(fmt.Sprintf("custom/%s/deposit", queryRoute)

[alexanderbez]

Hmmm I dont think so. I think its implicit. Deposit will be empty in the case where its not voting or deposit period, no?

[alexanderbez]

Responded @fedekunze

[fedekunze]

ACK. Thanks @alexanderbez !