feat(genesis): deployerAddress passed as parameter

[Villaquiranm]

closes #2573

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 63.37%. Comparing base (8ec556e) to head (fe837a4).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2986      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   63.30%   63.37%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         548      548              
  Lines       78511    78715     +204     
==========================================
+ Hits        49704    49885     +181     
- Misses      25452    25474      +22     
- Partials     3355     3356       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contribs/gnodev	61.11% <ø> (+0.53%)	⬆️
contribs/gnofaucet	14.82% <ø> (ø)
gno.land	67.35% <ø> (+0.17%)	⬆️
gnovm	67.88% <ø> (ø)
misc/genstd	79.72% <ø> (ø)
tm2	62.33% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Villaquiranm]

closes #2573

[moul]

Depends on #2824

[thehowl]

No longer blocked; please merge master to fix the go.mod CI and fix lint CI. I'll wait for the review team to do a first pass.

[n0izn0iz]

the first tx is not necessarily what has been passed to TxsAddPackages command

also loading the examples here will be removed from what I understand so maybe we should not change his file until #1952 is fixed

[Villaquiranm]

thanks for the review @n0izn0iz changed back while waiting for that change :)

[jefft0]

Hello @Villaquiranm . This PR closes issue #2573 . I see that it adds a way to configure the deployer address from the command line. But the issue also says "". But the issue also says to change to a default "deployer address like g1sh0uldn0thappen..." Is this still needed?

[Villaquiranm]

Hey @jefft0 thanks for your review.
I mean I could put g1sh0uldn0thappen but that being a non valid address, maybe it is better to fail if the parameter is not given ? that's why I left it as it was but sure I could put 'g1sh0uldn0thappen'

Hello @Villaquiranm . This PR closes issue #2573 . I see that it adds a way to configure the deployer address from the command line. But the issue also says "". But the issue also says to change to a default "deployer address like g1sh0uldn0thappen..." Is this still needed?

[jefft0]

Hey @jefft0 thanks for your review. I mean I could put g1sh0uldn0thappen but that being a non valid address, maybe it is better to fail if the parameter is not given ? that's why I left it as it was but sure I could put 'g1sh0uldn0thappen'

Hello @Villaquiranm . This PR closes issue #2573 . I see that it adds a way to configure the deployer address from the command line. But the issue also says "". But the issue also says to change to a default "deployer address like g1sh0uldn0thappen..." Is this still needed?

Hi @Villaquiranm . I can't tell you the answer. My job as part of "review/triage" is to anticipate the questions that the core devs would ask during their final review, and to make sure they have been considered.

The mnemonic (and private key) of address g1jg8mtutu9khhfwc4nxmuhcpftf0pajdhfvsqf5 is well-known, and thehowl suggests that it shouldn't be the default (like it is in your PR). What do you think are the options to deal with this?