fix(group)!: Register types with Amino

[amaury1093]

Description

In v0.46, we forgot to register amino types on the group's AppModule interface.

This results in group Msgs not rendering correctly for amino-json: #13592 (comment)

This is a state-machine breaking change if the chain uses group with amino. We should decide if we backport it with clear instructions, of just wait for 0.47. I prefer the latter.

---

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)

[amaury1093]

Whereas on v0.46, we have:

{"proposers":["cosmos1d4jk6cn9wgcsj540xq"]}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13592 (1eda1c7) into main (10ac33e) will decrease coverage by 1.07%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13592      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.78%   54.70%   -1.08%     
==========================================
  Files         692      645      -47     
  Lines       59931    55692    -4239     
==========================================
- Hits        33431    30465    -2966     
+ Misses      23666    22739     -927     
+ Partials     2834     2488     -346     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/group/module/module.go	52.50% <100.00%> (+0.60%)	⬆️
x/group/keeper/keeper.go	56.25% <0.00%> (-0.40%)	⬇️
tx/textual/valuerenderer/bytes.go
orm/model/ormtable/auto_increment.go
orm/model/ormtable/util.go
orm/internal/stablejson/encode.go
orm/encoding/ormkv/key_codec.go
orm/encoding/ormfield/codec.go
orm/encoding/ormfield/enum.go
math/int.go
... and 39 more

[tac0turtle]

its unclear to me if we miss these or choose not to include them? does it make sense to do some ast tool in order to verify things are right?

[amaury1093]

I think we simply missed them. It's better to have the type information.

Re AST tool: We now add amino annoations on proto Msgs. We could add validations based on those. One simple validation I'm thinking is that 1/ all proto Msg has an amino annotation and 2/ the annotation value is equal to the one we registered inside go-amino (and in a later phase 3/ the output of go-amino is the same as our new proto-based amino encoder)

[julienrbrt]

@Mergifyio backport release/v0.46.x

[mergify]

backport release/v0.46.x

✅ Backports have been created

• #14099 fix(group)!: Register types with Amino (backport #13592) has been created for branch release/v0.46.x