feat: implement authority module

[lumtis]

Description

• Add authority module containing object Policies matching address with policy types
• Refactor messages to use this module for authorization check
• Refactor message tests to use mocks for IsAuthorized for better unit testing
• Migration script observer.Params -> authority.Policies
• Add UpdatePolicies message to update the policies.

Closes: #1714

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 33.36%. Comparing base (5297c87) to head (da33217).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1815      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    39.92%   33.36%   -6.57%     
===========================================
  Files          206      130      -76     
  Lines        12617     9205    -3412     
===========================================
- Hits          5037     3071    -1966     
+ Misses        7183     5909    -1274     
+ Partials       397      225     -172     

Files	Coverage Δ
x/authority/genesis.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/authority/keeper/grpc_query_policies.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/authority/keeper/msg_server_update_policies.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/authority/keeper/policies.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...le/keeper/msg_server_deploy_fungible_coin_zrc20.go	94.11% <100.00%> (ø)
...ngible/keeper/msg_server_deploy_system_contract.go	67.44% <100.00%> (ø)
.../fungible/keeper/msg_server_remove_foreign_coin.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...le/keeper/msg_server_udpate_zrc20_liquidity_cap.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ible/keeper/msg_server_update_contract_bytecode.go	92.50% <100.00%> (ø)
...ngible/keeper/msg_server_update_system_contract.go	79.59% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 5 more

... and 81 files with indirect coverage changes

[github-actions]

!!!WARNING!!!
nosec detected in the following files: x/observer/keeper/msg_server_update_observer_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.

[skosito]

looks good, couple smaller comments

[ws4charlie]

Left a few minor comments

[lumtis]

Seems like there is bug with Codecov, the diff coverage is -6% while the new addition is almost fully covered, will merge and check if there is a bug, otherwise gonna see what's wrong