Update SPEC-SPEC & documentation for x/{bank,evidence}

[amaury1093]

Description

ref: #6953

• Update SPEC-SPEC to take this comment into account

For x/bank and x/evidence:

• read through the docs to make sure they're still up to date
• replace deprecated go interfaces/structs with their newer versions
• use protobuf message instead of go structs, where possible
• use a single README.md instead of separate spec files.

Rendered:

• SPEC-SPEC.md
• x/bank
• x/evidence

---

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 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.
• Wrote unit and integration tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
• Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

[alexanderbez]

THANK YOU <3

[amaury1093]

I'll put R4R, and will tackle other modules separetely.

[fedekunze]

This document should follow the SPEC-SPEC for consistency between the documents (I'm fine with changing it as long as it's consistent and documented 👍 )

[amaury1093]

Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of SPEC-SPEC. I'll update it to reflect this need then.

[alexanderbez]

@fedekunze please see my comment here. I believe the format/layout needs to be updated.

[amaury1093]

@fedekunze LMK if this updated SPEC-SPEC works for you.

[clevinson]

@amaurymartiny Should this refer to the "bank" instaed of "supply" module, as supply is not a module anymore? Or maybe referring to as supply functionality?

[amaury1093]

Makes sense. These docs were added at the same time as merging x/supply into x/bank (#6010), so I thought they made sense. I'll replace with "supply functionality".

Edit: #7407

[clevinson]

Similarly, there isn't a supply module anymore, so we should probably remove references to it as such.

[tac0turtle]

Please add this back, this is needed for the docs site. I commented on the merged commit, moving the comment here

[tac0turtle]

ditto

[alexanderbez]

@marbar3778 I suggested a single file. Can the docs website not just use a single file? I suppose if the docs website can do it, then perhaps Atlas can too. Sorry @amaurymartiny maybe we revert the idea of using a single doc.

[amaury1093]

I'm fine with both, I only touched 4 modules, so can revert. Would just like to have a final decision on what people prefer.

I personally prefer having separate .md files, to avoid having md files with 1k+ lines.

Can the docs website not just use a single file?

Yeah that's fine, it'll be one long page per module.

then perhaps Atlas can too

I thought that was the main decisive factor:

• if Atlas can only read one single README.md, then let's continue like this.
• if you think Atlas could potentially take into account multiple md files, I'll revert.

@alexanderbez lmk how we should move forward.

[tac0turtle]

@marbar3778 I suggested a single file. Can the docs website not just use a single file? I suppose if the docs website can do it, then perhaps Atlas can too. Sorry @amaurymartiny maybe we revert the idea of using a single doc.

I did not mean to say revert the single file change, just meant add back the removal of the header. The docs use this for titles of the files.

I personally prefer having separate .md files, to avoid having md files with 1k+ lines.

I also prefer this. If the move is single file I am also fine with this as well.

[alexanderbez]

Sorry, let's go back to multiple files with a main README.md that navigates to each separate file. Sorry for the trouble @amaurymartiny. I'm sure I can figure out how to handle this in Atlas.