feat: Add Whitelist ERC20 Cli.

[lukema95]

Description

Add Whitelist ERC20 Cli. #1356

Closes:

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]

Thanks for the contribution!
Just left a few comment.
We should also add an entry in changelog.md file for the new command

[lukema95]

Thanks for the contribution! Just left a few comment. We should also add an entry in changelog.md file for the new command

all done

[lumtis]

@lukema95 I think it is ready to be merged.
We would just need:

• To run make generate
• Fix the integer overflow warning from cosmos-sec

[lukema95]

@lukema95 I think it is ready to be merged. We would just need:

• To run make generate
• Fix the integer overflow warning from cosmos-sec

all done

[lumtis]

Seems like make generate has not successful

[lukema95]

@lumtis I run make generate, but it doesn't do anything right now.

[lumtis]

@lumtis I run make generate, but it doesn't do anything right now.

It seems there are some differences in the proto generation. What buf version to you use?

buf --version

I have 1.28.0

[lukema95]

@lumtis I run make generate, but it doesn't do anything right now.

It seems there are some differences in the proto generation. What buf version to you use?

buf --version

I have 1.28.0

@lumtis I switched buf to 1.28.0 and still nothing has changed. Can you try it to see if you can generate the correct file?

[lumtis]

@lumtis I run make generate, but it doesn't do anything right now.

It seems there are some differences in the proto generation. What buf version to you use?

buf --version

I have 1.28.0

@lumtis I switched buf to 1.28.0 and still nothing has changed. Can you try it to see if you can generate the correct file?

This is curious, from the logs it seems you proto generation doesn't add addition lines in common/common.pb.go
Can you maybe try adding these manually?

 type HeaderData struct {
 	// Types that are valid to be assigned to Data:
+	//
 	//	*HeaderData_EthereumHeader
 	//	*HeaderData_BitcoinHeader
 	Data isHeaderData_Data `protobuf_oneof:"data"`
@@ -424,6 +425,7 @@ func (*HeaderData) XXX_OneofWrappers() []interface{} {
 
 type Proof struct {
 	// Types that are valid to be assigned to Proof:
+	//
 	//	*Proof_EthereumProof
 	//	*Proof_BitcoinProof
 	Proof isProof_Proof `protobuf_oneof:"proof"`

[lukema95]

@lumtis I run make generate, but it doesn't do anything right now.

It seems there are some differences in the proto generation. What buf version to you use?

buf --version

I have 1.28.0

@lumtis I switched buf to 1.28.0 and still nothing has changed. Can you try it to see if you can generate the correct file?

This is curious, from the logs it seems you proto generation doesn't add addition lines in common/common.pb.go Can you maybe try adding these manually?

 type HeaderData struct {
 	// Types that are valid to be assigned to Data:
+	//
 	//	*HeaderData_EthereumHeader
 	//	*HeaderData_BitcoinHeader
 	Data isHeaderData_Data `protobuf_oneof:"data"`
@@ -424,6 +425,7 @@ func (*HeaderData) XXX_OneofWrappers() []interface{} {
 
 type Proof struct {
 	// Types that are valid to be assigned to Proof:
+	//
 	//	*Proof_EthereumProof
 	//	*Proof_BitcoinProof
 	Proof isProof_Proof `protobuf_oneof:"proof"`

done

[lumtis]

@lukema95 in 58d79f8 you modified for HeaderData but there is the same issue with Proof
Still running the CI to check if it changes something

[EDIT] Yeah we only get the error for proof now

[lukema95]

@lukema95 in 58d79f8 you modified for HeaderData but there is the same issue with Proof Still running the CI to check if it changes something

[EDIT] Yeah we only get the error for proof now

😂It's weird. Do I need to manually fix the error for Proof again? It is not clear how many such errors there are.

[lumtis]

@lukema95 in 58d79f8 you modified for HeaderData but there is the same issue with Proof Still running the CI to check if it changes something
[EDIT] Yeah we only get the error for proof now

😂It's weird. Do I need to manually fix the error for Proof again? It is not clear how many such errors there are.

Yeah, you can do the same thing with Proof and see if it passes