feat: gRPC query for operator and chain configuration

[alexanderbez]

Description

Closes: #11582

Introduce a new /cosmos/base/node/v1beta1/config gRPC query that exposes operator configuration, most notably the operator's configured minimum gas price.

I added the proto definition to a new proto/cosmos/base/node/v1beta1/query.proto path, as I could not find a more fitting place. Open to suggestions on alternatives, but I'm pretty happy with this location.

I've marked this for backport to 0.45.x and 0.46.x, even though it technically breaks the Application Go API, but I think this is worth it since so many folks have requested this for a variety of reasons.

---

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)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13485 (3c31faf) into main (f9945db) will decrease coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 71.42%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13485      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   53.90%   53.81%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         642      653      +11     
  Lines       55452    56828    +1376     
==========================================
+ Hits        29893    30581     +688     
- Misses      23155    23801     +646     
- Partials     2404     2446      +42     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
client/grpc/node/service.go	71.42% <71.42%> (ø)
simapp/app.go	77.84% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/simd/cmd/genaccounts.go	89.09% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/simd/cmd/root.go	70.35% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/state.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/export.go	11.94% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/upgrades.go	28.57% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/genesis_account.go	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/test_helpers.go	30.25% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/genesis.go	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

[aaronc]

So I wouldn't put node and chain configuration together.

Account prefixes in my mind should be exposed by the auth query services and the validator prefixes should be exposed by staking. The fact that there is still the global config is not something we should rely on here as it could go away and I think those prefixes would go to auth and staking modules.

Why are we exposing bech32 pub key prefixes? I thought those were deprecated.

Also regarding node minimum gas price, this makes sense and this location looks good, but it seems that clients won't actually get the gas prices of validators but sentries or full nodes right?

[alexanderbez]

Account prefixes in my mind should be exposed by the auth query services and the validator prefixes should be exposed by staking.

I think it's so silly to separate Bech32 HRPs like this. It makes zero sense to me. They really don't belong in any module IMO.

Why are we exposing bech32 pub key prefixes? I thought those were deprecated.

I exposed whatever was in types.Config.

Also regarding node minimum gas price, this makes sense and this location looks good, but it seems that clients won't actually get the gas prices of validators but sentries or full nodes right?

What clients can do is query public nodes to get a good understanding of what the average min gas price is. At the end of the day, yes, it's the proposer's min gas price that matters.

In any case, since I'm getting push back on the bech32 stuff, I'm just going to keep the min gas price field.