fix: unmarshalling issue with multisig keys in master (backport #10061)

[mergify]

This is an automatic backport of pull request #10061 done by Mergify.
Cherry-pick of 3d3bc7c has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/release/v0.42.x/pr-10061
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/release/v0.42.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 3d3bc7c43.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   crypto/keys/multisig/amino.go

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   CHANGELOG.md
	both modified:   crypto/keys/multisig/multisig_test.go

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

---

Mergify commands and options

More conditions and actions can be found in the documentation.

You can also trigger Mergify actions by commenting on this pull request:

• @Mergifyio refresh will re-evaluate the rules
• @Mergifyio rebase will rebase this PR on its base branch
• @Mergifyio update will merge the base branch into this PR
• @Mergifyio backport <destination> will backport this PR on <destination> branch

Additionally, on Mergify dashboard you can:

• look at your merge queues
• generate the Mergify configuration with the config editor.

Finally, you can contact us on https://mergify.io/

[orijbot]

Visit https://dashboard.github.orijtech.com?back=0&pr=10113&remote=false&repo=cosmos%2Fcosmos-sdk to see benchmark details.

[alexanderbez]

Is the TestLegacyMultisig failure related to this PR?

[amaury1093]

Is the TestLegacyMultisig failure related to this PR?

Yeah it seems so, it also happens in the (original, more minimal) #10043. Hmm maybe the proposed fix actually introduces a regression.

[robert-zaremba]

It seams that this backport doesn't work and we will need to manually fix it.

[amaury1093]

IMO this fix is not correct. Reading the comment just above, we actually don't want to create new Anys, because we want to keep the existing Anys' .compat field.

The unmarshalling error comes from the fact that .compat is empty on the new Anys.

[amaury1093]

@haasted is this something you'd be willing to debug more on your side? Main requirement is to fix the failing test, I don't have an exact fix in mind, but here's a pointer to where to look at: #10113 (comment)

[robert-zaremba]

We are not merging it. We re-opened #10042 to investigate this issue further.

[haasted]

@AmauryM : I honestly think I lack the context understanding of the intricacies of the new protobuf stuff. When the talk turns to things like the .compat field I have very little idea what's going on, so it would probably be more efficient for someone else to fix this bug.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[blewater]

@AmauryM, @robert-zaremba with the compat fix merged to this, can we resume the review?

[amaury1093]

Thanks @blewater! I'm having a look

[amaury1093]

LGTM! Could you create the same fix on master too?

(The usual process is to do master first, then backport. But for this one we can do a forward-port.)

[blewater]

LGTM! Could you create the same fix on master too?

(The usual process is to do master first, then backport. But for this one we can do a forward-port.)

Done, #10515