feat: Add upgrade proposal plan validation to CLI

[dwedul-figure]

Description

Closes: #10286

When submitting a software upgrade proposal (e.g. $DAEMON tx gov submit-proposal software-upgrade)

• Validate the plan info by default.
• Add flag --no-validate to allow skipping that validation.
• Add flag --daemon-name to designate the executable name (needed for validation).
• The daemon name comes first from the --daemon-name flag. If that's not provided, it looks for a DAEMON_NAME environment variable (to match what's used by Cosmovisor). If that's not set, the name of the currently running executable is used.

Things that are validated:

• The plan info cannot be empty or blank.
• If the plan info is a url:
  • It must have a checksum query parameter.
  • It must return properly formatted plan info JSON.
  • The checksum is correct.
• If the plan info is not a url:
  • It must be propery formatted plan info JSON.
• There is at least one entry in the binaries field.
• The keys of the binaries field are either "any" or in the format of "os/arch".
• All URLs contain a checksum query parameter.
• Each URL contains a usable response.
• The checksum is correct for each URL.

Note: With this change, either a valid --upgrade-info will need to be provided, or else --no-validate must be provided. If no --upgrade-info is given, a validation error is returned.

---

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 N/A
• 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 #10379 (71f1ba1) into master (878e3e8) will decrease coverage by 0.82%.
The diff coverage is 86.36%.

❗ Current head 71f1ba1 differs from pull request most recent head 382a137. Consider uploading reports for the commit 382a137 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10379      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.11%   64.29%   -0.83%     
==========================================
  Files         604      583      -21     
  Lines       57862    55338    -2524     
==========================================
- Hits        37678    35579    -2099     
+ Misses      18090    17735     -355     
+ Partials     2094     2024      -70     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/upgrade/types/planinfo/downloader.go	81.70% <81.70%> (ø)
x/upgrade/types/planinfo/plan_info.go	94.00% <94.00%> (ø)
x/nft/keeper/class.go	73.33% <0.00%> (-6.67%)	⬇️
x/mint/module.go	52.54% <0.00%> (-3.02%)	⬇️
x/auth/tx/sigs.go	77.57% <0.00%> (-2.81%)	⬇️
store/cachekv/store.go	77.63% <0.00%> (-1.32%)	⬇️
x/auth/tx/builder.go	78.60% <0.00%> (-0.88%)	⬇️
simapp/app.go	81.26% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
types/errors/errors.go	83.17% <0.00%> (ø)
x/mint/types/genesis.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 32 more

[likhita-809]

lgtm, but it'd be great if someone more familiar with this stuff approves first @blushi @alexanderbez

[robert-zaremba]

Looks good. We did an online review and created a follow up issue: #10464

Pre-approving - let's improve the docs and few things related to the comments.

[robert-zaremba]

Idea: how about having a package /x/upgrade/plan and renaming this package to Info?

In any case, let's move away from types.

[dwedul-figure]

I made this change.

I moved x/upgrade/types/planinfo/ stuff to x/upgrades/plan/, renamed plan_info.go to just info.go, and PlanInfo to just Info.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, though.

1. Info is such a generic word that I feel it'll be easy to get confused about it.
2. The Plan struct is still defined by the protos and placed in x/upgrades/types/upgrade.pb.go with extra functionality added in x/upgrades/types/plan.go. Having this x/upgrades/plan/ directory without the Plan stuff seems confusing. Additionally, it would now feel weird to put the Plan stuff into the x/upgrades/plan/ directory because it'll be referred to as plan.Plan.

@robert-zaremba What do you think about leaving it named the way it was, and in the types/planinfo/ directory until a refactor breaks out all the types stuff at the same time?