R4R: LCD: Properly Init Proposing Validator in Tests

[alexanderbez]

• Refactored InitializeTestLCD to properly include proposing validator in genesis state.
• Don't use consensus pubkey for operator address, but instead generate a unique one.

closes #2416
closes #2034

---

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.

• Wrote tests

• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)

• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #

• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2429 into develop will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 78.57%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2429      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    61.52%   61.55%   +0.02%     
===========================================
  Files          122      122              
  Lines         7486     7491       +5     
===========================================
+ Hits          4606     4611       +5     
  Misses        2561     2561              
  Partials       319      319

[rigelrozanski]

cool - few commments

[rigelrozanski]

The reason this is stalling is because the one validator which is actually online aka "validator-1" only has a fraction of the voting power, the network will not stall if it's power is greater than 2/3, ideally should be 99.9999% of the voting power so it's the only proposer for all blocks, hence no down time... let's switch power to something much larger? maybe 999999?

[alexanderbez]

Ahhh yes, good catch. Thanks.

[rigelrozanski]

One more thing: The one test which really gets at the root of what is actually needed in distribution is to test that validator-1 is actually initialized to the staking state (aka can retrieve validator record) - want to investigate if this already exists in one of the lcd tests?

[rigelrozanski]

@bez - looks like this issue which is already existing - we could merge this PR and then address this issue separately? #2339

[alexanderbez]

@rigelrozanski indeed -- I addressed all your comments. I think this can be merged and I can handle #2339 separately.