portfolio keys migration and redundant data deletion

[avkr003]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 47.87234% with 49 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 42.28%. Comparing base (2a452cd) to head (b58f854).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #772      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   42.38%   42.28%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         628      628              
  Lines       20500    20537      +37     
==========================================
- Hits         8688     8685       -3     
- Misses      10802    10840      +38     
- Partials     1010     1012       +2     

Components	Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions	82.84% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle	88.29% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper	48.35% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries	19.28% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions	100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries	68.42% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions	57.93% <ø> (ø)
amm_lifecycle	79.16% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper	61.13% <ø> (ø)
amm_queries	29.94% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_transactions	78.82% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
assetprofile_keeper	83.33% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_queries	47.41% <ø> (ø)
burner_transactions	0.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
burner_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_queries	63.54% <ø> (ø)
clock_transactions	30.00% <ø> (ø)
clock_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
clock_keeper	76.92% <ø> (ø)
clock_queries	∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_transactions	48.95% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper	19.60% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries	9.33% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle	100.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper	81.81% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries	85.71% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions	48.64% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle	71.23% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper	63.05% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries	55.31% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions	0.00% <ø> (ø)
incentive_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper	0.00% <ø> (ø)
incentive_queries	∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions	63.63% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle	73.75% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper	89.47% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries	45.97% <ø> (ø)
oracle_transactions	30.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle	0.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper	63.88% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries	34.95% <ø> (ø)
parameter_transactions	15.11% <ø> (ø)
parameter_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
parameter_keeper	75.00% <ø> (ø)
parameter_queries	60.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_transactions	73.91% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle	75.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper	71.42% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries	13.04% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions	28.57% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tier_keeper	90.47% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries	19.67% <33.33%> (-2.83%)	⬇️
tokenomics_transactions	72.32% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper	83.33% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries	70.96% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries	60.00% <ø> (ø)

[amityadav0]

I think we can put this logic in migration. will that not work ?

[avkr003]

Older entries might take a lot of time to finish deleting leading to workflow failure. So deleting in abci.