x/gamm: Add check for correct input asset denoms to CalcJoinPoolShares

[AlpinYukseloglu]

Closes: #1906

What is the purpose of the change

Our current implementation of CalcJoinPoolShares checks to make sure the number of denoms sent in for an all-asset join is correct, but has no check for whether those assets are actually the correct denoms. This makes it so that entirely invalid inputs (i.e. correct number of input tokens but incorrect denoms) successfully make it through the entire set of all-asset join calculations until they are incidentally caught in the single-asset join section due to a check in updateIntermediaryPoolAssetsLiquidity.

osmosis/x/gamm/pool-models/balancer/amm.go

Lines 368 to 370 in 85529c7

	} else if tokensIn.Len() != p.NumAssets() {
	return sdk.ZeroInt(), sdk.NewCoins(), errors.New("balancer pool only supports LP'ing with one asset or all assets in pool")
	}

This PR adds an additional check to the input tokens that makes sure they are of the correct denoms so that the function never assumes invalid inputs are correct for calculating all-asset joins.

Brief Changelog

• Adds a check similar to DenomsSubsetOf that makes sure that the input denoms are part of the pool being joined (Note: we cannot use DenomsSubsetOf here because we have a denom->PoolAsset map instead of a set of sdk.Coins to represent pool liquidity)

Testing and Verifying

This change is already covered by existing GAMM tests.

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? (not applicable)

[mattverse]

I do think that the existing code base does have checks within the methods of CalcJoinPoolShares already, but Im generally agreeing on this extra explicit sanity check!

[alexanderbez]

LGTM

1. Do we have a test case already testing this path? If not, we should definitely add one.
2. We should get a changelog entry in.

[AlpinYukseloglu]

LGTM

1. Do we have a test case already testing this path? If not, we should definitely add one.

I believe this test should cover it but happy to add another one with more assets/mixed assets if you think it would be useful:

osmosis/x/gamm/pool-models/balancer/pool_test.go

Line 121 in 2007bab

name: "newLiquidity has a coin that poolAssets don't",

2. We should get a changelog entry in.

Added in recent commit!

[p0mvn]

LGTM

1. Do we have a test case already testing this path? If not, we should definitely add one.

I believe this test should cover it but happy to add another one with more assets/mixed assets if you think it would be useful:

osmosis/x/gamm/pool-models/balancer/pool_test.go

Line 121 in 2007bab

name: "newLiquidity has a coin that poolAssets don't",

2. We should get a changelog entry in.

Added in recent commit!

Just making sure we don't miss anything - was that commit pushed? Not seeing a new test

[p0mvn]

LGTM

[AlpinYukseloglu]

Just making sure we don't miss anything - was that commit pushed? Not seeing a new test

This test was already there so it's not a part of this PR. The link I included was directly from main