test: add import data to e2e tests

[kingpinXD]

Description

Adds a new test make start-e2e-import-mainnet-test , which does the following

• download latest genesis data exported from mainnet
• imports data into a genesis file
• starts a network and runs e2e tests on it

Closes: #2067

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Include instructions and any relevant details so others can reproduce.

• Tested CCTX in localnet
• Tested in development environment
• Go unit tests
• Go integration tests
• Tested via GitHub Actions

Checklist:

• I have added unit tests that prove my fix feature works

[lumtis]

Import Data might not be descriptive enough, what about export/import upgrade test?

If the test is good I think we can also work on the renaming on develop afterward

Unclear to me why do we keep the legacy genesis? Don't we export the genesis with the new binary?

[skosito]

some minor comments, and +1 for adding more details on why legacy is needed

[kingpinXD]

Unclear to me why do we keep the legacy genesis? Don't we export the genesis with the new binary?

The import data test should ideally be run before an upgrade, so the export would be from the old binary, and the data would get imported to the current binary .
Existing state data from mainnet : https://snapshots.zetachain.com/latest-state-export

This pr does nothing around export though , we still use the standard export command to export genesis which is a separate process

[lumtis]

This is LGTM if we can create an issue to list the modification to make on develop -> removing legacy genesis from the module source code

[github-actions]

!!!WARNING!!!
nosec detected in the following files: x/crosschain/keeper/grpc_query_cctx_rate_limit.go, x/crosschain/keeper/grpc_query_cctx_rate_limit_test.go

Be very careful about using #nosec in code. It can be a quick way to suppress security warnings and move forward with development, it should be employed with caution. Suppressing warnings with #nosec can hide potentially serious vulnerabilities. Only use #nosec when you're absolutely certain that the security issue is either a false positive or has been mitigated in another way.

Only suppress a single rule (or a specific set of rules) within a section of code, while continuing to scan for other problems. To do this, you can list the rule(s) to be suppressed within the #nosec annotation, e.g: /* #nosec G401 */ or //#nosec G201 G202 G203
Broad #nosec annotations should be avoided, as they can hide other vulnerabilities. The CI will block you from merging this PR until you remove #nosec annotations that do not target specific rules.

Pay extra attention to the way #nosec is being used in the files listed above.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 21 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.37%. Comparing base (181ba7f) to head (3690dba).

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           release/v16    #2127      +/-   ##
===============================================
- Coverage        71.48%   71.37%   -0.11%     
===============================================
  Files              252      252              
  Lines            14081    14102      +21     
===============================================
  Hits             10066    10066              
- Misses            3554     3575      +21     
  Partials           461      461              

Files	Coverage Δ
x/fungible/keeper/deposits.go	95.00% <ø> (ø)
x/crosschain/types/genesis.go	63.15% <0.00%> (-14.27%)	⬇️
x/fungible/types/genesis.go	46.15% <0.00%> (-53.85%)	⬇️