feat: QOL Capabilities functions

[Reecepbcups]

Per: CosmWasm/wasmvm#413

I have added some capability functions here instead of in wasmvm.

This way a chain like Juno can add wasmd.GetDefaultWasmCapabilities() for future upgrades without us forgetting to add the capabilities (that wasmd implement)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1316 (c24c67a) into main (b33c38c) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1316      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.47%   63.46%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          56       56              
  Lines        6971     6975       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         4425     4427       +2     
- Misses       2218     2219       +1     
- Partials      328      329       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
app/app.go	86.39% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[pinosu]

Thanks for your pr!
Alex is on holidays and will be back in 2 weeks and he can give a better feedback on this work.
Regarding your changes, I am not sure if "default cosmos capabilities" and "default wasm capabilities" names are a bit misleading.
Moreover don't you lose visibility on which capabilities you are actually importing, and don't you need to check anyway on every version upgrade that those functions haven't been modified and some capability was added/removed?

[Reecepbcups]

@pinosu

I agree default can be misleading. Will change that worder

Moreover don't you lose visibility on which capabilities you are actually importing

I just wanted to solve for new wasmvm/wasmd functionality as it comes out. This way upgraded chains don't forget to add cosmwasm_1_# to their capabilities as we get more features.

That way as you upgrade (state breaking) to a future wasmvm 1.3 it would return capabilities cosmwasm_1_1, 1_2, and 1_3 automatically

This is all I was trying to solve for here as we forgot to add this during our testnet launch

[pinosu]

Thank you @Reecepbcups !
I think the issue you want to solve makes sense, we just need to find the proper way to do it.
Let's continue this discussion when @alpe is back, he might have some good ideas about it.

[alpe]

Thanks for the PR! I do understand that new capabilities are easy to miss. Therefore I had highlighted this in the changelog.
Nevertheless I am very open to make this better.

With your solution, I have some concerns about the method names as well as the grouping. Let's spike some solutions that work nicely with git diff. I have opened #1341

[alpe]

Closing in favour of #1361 . Thanks for bringing attention to the problem! 🏅