gofumpt -w -l for consistency with cosmos-sdk

[faddat]

Per

#1468

But here's some context:

This pr can be recreated by anyone using the following commands:

go install mvdan.cc/gofumpt@latest
gofumpt -l -w .

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1512 (72dcbec) into main (bc15e65) will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1512      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   48.05%   48.18%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines        1494     1486       -8     
==========================================
- Hits          718      716       -2     
+ Misses        755      749       -6     
  Partials       21       21              

[faddat]

OK, up to date here. I understand per earlier comments on an earlier PR that we'd like to follow sdk standards, is this PR desired?

[okwme]

hi @faddat
thanks for the PR, just want to confirm we'd like to stay in sync with cosmos-sdk standards.
i found their git pre-hooks use gofmt here.
will close this PR unless it changes in the SDK

[okwme]

@marbar3778 tells me sdk does use gofumpt but there's no way to add it to CI lint apparently.
re-opening this for discussion on how to proceed.

[faddat]

We can enforce gofumpt in ci. It is very simple, but we'd hesitated to do it in osmosis because it may make the project harder to approach. Nonetheless, I'm in support of adding it to ci, and did so in ibc-go, here:

cosmos/ibc-go#1418

[faddat]

I've now added enforcement of gofumpt to gaia, and ci would fail in the future if the files haven't had

gofumpt -w -l .

or such run against them.

[faddat]

Additionally, codecov is a factory for red herrings.

In this case, this patch increases its (vague) sense of overall coverage for the project, while decreasing its (vague) sense of coverage because we check errors.

eg: it is showing a reduction in coverage, despite the code becoming safer.

[faddat]

Odd thing about response times.

#1577

[faddat]

this is just getting silly.

I've been elected to validate the hub by my delegators.

Validators are supposed to check through the code.

I found that we were behind where we should be, linting-wise.

I solved that.

What is going on here guys?

Please don't lock this PR, it is the appropriate place for this conversation.

This is a security-enhancing PR from May 27. It is July 10.

If you do not wish my contributions to hit this repository, I understand but I need for the cosmos hub team lead, @okwme to say that so that I can inform my delegators.

[tac0turtle]

Let's get this merged. We shouldn't be letting prs sit for so long for such simple changes. It's more energetic to let it sit then merging it

[okwme]

thanks for the PR @faddat and thanks for the review @marbar3778
merging now