feat: add the custom handlers for cosmwasm

[gsk967]

Description

closes: #XXXX

Test the cosmwasm

• Build the binary from build (from this branch: sai/wasm_handler https://github.com/umee-network/umee/tree/sai/wasm_handler)

• Clone the umee-infra repo

  • git clone REPO
  • cd $REPO_PATH

• Copy the binary to umee-infra (./noob/umeed-builds/umeed-cosmwasm)

  • cp BINARY ./noob/umeed-builds/umeed-cosmwasm

• Setup the multi node with cosmwasm

bash ./noob/cosmwasm/setup-cosmwasm.sh

• Run the sample cosmwasm (all tests should pass in the script)
  • It will upload the cosmwasm contract and initiate the contract and it will do some transactions and queries on the contract

bash ./noob/cosmwasm/test-cw20-base-cosmwasm.sh

---

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
• added appropriate labels to the PR
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• 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 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 #1997 (1ef846e) into main (7f05ad4) will decrease coverage by 4.81%.
The diff coverage is 60.07%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1997      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.38%   70.58%   -4.81%     
==========================================
  Files         100      126      +26     
  Lines        8025     9580    +1555     
==========================================
+ Hits         6050     6762     +712     
- Misses       1589     2352     +763     
- Partials      386      466      +80     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
util/store/unmarshal.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/incentive/codec.go	47.82% <ø> (+9.89%)	⬆️
x/incentive/keeper/hooks.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/incentive/keeper/invariants.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/leverage/keeper/incentive.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
x/leverage/types/keys.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
x/leverage/types/proposal.go	33.33% <0.00%> (ø)
x/oracle/keeper/hooks.go	95.65% <ø> (ø)
x/oracle/types/keys.go	90.47% <ø> (ø)
x/oracle/types/msgs.go	81.05% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 54 more

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

[toteki]

(Be sure to use the var names name consistent with message name for MsgSupplyCollateral)

A question:

Do these handlers carry any risk of bypassing GetSigners security? For example, the rule where MsgSupply.Supplier field must be the same address that signed it

[RafilxTenfen]

Do these handlers carry any risk of bypassing GetSigners security? For example, the rule where MsgSupply.Supplier field must be the same address that signed it

It should not bypass the signer's rule, it is the same as sending a msg through the leverage MsgServer, but definitely we can double-check that with a script/test

[robert-zaremba]

let's check if there is other way than the big ambiguous JSON. I indicated already half a year ago, but didn't a good example. Osmosis is also using this style. It works, so not blocking, but let's find out if there is no better way before merging.