feat: Prefix-based routing in IBCv2 Router

[kulikthebird]

Description

This PR introduces a prefix-based routing for the IBCv2 Router. Before this change only the exact port IDs could be associated with a given IBCModule. This change make it possible to associate port ID prefixes with the modules.

closes: #8302

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against the correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md).
• Linked to GitHub issue with discussion and accepted design, OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards and Go style guide.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/).
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Provide a conventional commit message to follow the repository standards.
• Include a descriptive changelog entry when appropriate. This may be left to the discretion of the PR reviewers. (e.g. chores should be omitted from changelog)
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
• Review SonarCloud Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

[AdityaSripal]

Should we have some way to ensure that there is no portID that is a prefix of another portID?

[kulikthebird]

Should we have some way to ensure that there is no portID that is a prefix of another portID?

Good point - I've added a check for that and updated the interface a little bit.

[AdityaSripal]

lgtm so far, will discuss internally if we want to use the new dependency or just implement prefix check directly as we did with the IBC v1 router

[AdityaSripal]

Hi @kulikthebird can you please remove this external dependency and just use a for-loop as we had originally. We decided internally not to add the additional third-party library for now.

Thanks! I will approve and merge once that change is in

[AdityaSripal]

Thank you @kulikthebird !!

[gjermundgaraba]

Is there any scenario where this could actually cause any problems?
@AdityaSripal?

[AdityaSripal]

The issue here as I understand is that order is not deterministic here. So the first match will pass. But this is why we ensure that no two portIDs on the router are prefixes of each other. Thus the first portID to match the prefix check should be the only portID to match the prefix check.

cc: @kulikthebird

[kulikthebird]

I've just realized, that it is possible to add a shorter prefix using AddRoute method i.e.

1. Add prefix "port01"
2. Try to add prefix "port01somesuffix" - this won't pass, because we have a prefix "port01"
3. Add prefix "port" - this would pass, because non of the already added prefixes is a prefix for "port"

I'll add an additional check and test case for that scenario

[kulikthebird]

Done

[gjermundgaraba]

Seems reasonable to me. I want to make sure we are confident that the map iteration is safe though. Maybe even put a comment on why it is safe, and under what types of usage it might not (to prevent someone from accidentally using it for something else)

[gjermundgaraba]

Is there any scenario where this could actually cause any problems?
@AdityaSripal?

[gjermundgaraba]

This looks good! One last ask, could you please add a changelog entry as well? 🙏