Issue 1525: sub-section: combine superfluid query and staking query on querying delegation by delegator

[nghuyenthevinh2000]

Closes: #1525

What is the purpose of the change

Combining superfluid query and staking query on querying delegation by delegator

Brief Changelog

• add total-delegation-by-delegator to superfluid cli. It will query both superfluid delegation and normal delegation of a delegator.
• add proto rpc to superfluid/query.proto. It will return following information:

message QueryTotalDelegationByDelegatorResponse {
  repeated SuperfluidDelegationRecord superfluid_delegation_records = 1
      [ (gogoproto.nullable) = false ];

  repeated cosmos.staking.v1beta1.DelegationResponse delegation_response = 2 [
    (gogoproto.nullable) = false
  ];
  repeated cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin total_delegated_coins = 3 [
    (gogoproto.nullable) = false,
    (gogoproto.castrepeated) = "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.Coins"
  ];
  cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin total_equivalent_staked_amount = 4 [
    (gogoproto.nullable) = false,
    (gogoproto.castrepeated) = "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.Coin"
  ];
} 

the total_equivalent_staked_amount one is idea and code from @hieuvubk

• add logic TotalDelegationByDelegator() in combined_grpc_query.go (a new file set as foundation for later combined query between staking and superfluid delegation)

Testing and Verifying

Testing is as following:

• create 2 mock account
• 2 mock account will superfluid delegate 1000000 pool/gamm/1 and 1000000 pool/gamm/2, and delegate 18 uosmo to 2 validators. (9 osmo each)
• the expected result would be to check if total_delegated_coins returns correcly 3 delegation of a delegator, returns correctly 2 delegations in delegation_response, returns correctly 2 delegations in superfluid_delegation_records, the amount of total_equivalent_staked_amount has to be correctly the total osmo equivalent of all delegations.

Documentation and Release Note

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? no
• Is a relevant changelog entry added to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md? no
• How is the feature or change documented?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1539 (7642977) into main (725249f) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 6.70%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1539      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   19.57%   19.53%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         236      243       +7     
  Lines       31639    32458     +819     
==========================================
+ Hits         6194     6341     +147     
- Misses      24310    24958     +648     
- Partials     1135     1159      +24     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/epochs/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/gamm/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/incentives/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/mint/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/pool-incentives/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/superfluid/client/cli/query.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/superfluid/keeper/combined_grpc_query.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/superfluid/keeper/keeper.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
x/tokenfactory/types/query.pb.gw.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/superfluid/keeper/grpc_query.go	49.15% <85.71%> (+2.30%)	⬆️
... and 34 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 725249f...7642977. Read the comment docs.

[mattverse]

So I went through and did a brief review, here's what I think:

SuperfluidDelegationsByDelegator currently returns all open positions for the superfluid lock: meaning it doesn't return how much osmo equivilent is staked for the user's gamm share, but returns the amount of gamm share itself. That being said, I personally think adding how much osmo equivilent is staked via superfluid to this query would cause confusion if we directly add this to the coins. IMO would be possibly better if we created a new field for this in the struct.

In the same time, I also think creating a separate query for this would be useful as well!

Otherwise, I think the logic itself is LGTM! This is awesome! tysm

[hieuvubk]

#1632
can you take a look at this pr @mattverse

[ValarDragon]

Why is this changing every proto

[hieuvubk]

Why is this changing every proto

#1632
can u review this pr

[nghuyenthevinh2000]

I think that issue #1525 has a broad scope and should have several prs to fulfill that issue.

This pr scope is to combine superfluid query and staking query on querying delegation by delegator.

This pr would combine with @hieuvubk idea and code of osmo equivalent in #1632.

So, I think that this one is ready for review.

[nghuyenthevinh2000]

Why is this changing every proto

I have changed it so as to correctly change relevant proto files

[mattverse]

Left some comments!

Can we also revert changing go.mod and go.sum? Thanks!

[ValarDragon]

This LGTM!

Can you just add a changelog entry?

[nghuyenthevinh2000]

This LGTM!

Can you just add a changelog entry?

added, hope I add to correct place.

[mattverse]

LGTM!

This was a big feature! Thanks for this PR!