fix: attempt to fix panics for unresolvable imports by using GogoResolver (backport #7277)

[mergify]

Description

Uses the cosmos/gogoproto registry as opposed to including the entire merged global files registry.

closes: #7259

---

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 the 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 and Go style guide.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/).
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Provide a conventional commit message to follow the repository standards.
• Include a descriptive changelog entry when appropriate. This may be left to the discretion of the PR reviewers. (e.g. chores should be omitted from changelog)
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
• Review SonarCloud Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

---

This is an automatic backport of pull request #7277 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

[mergify]

Cherry-pick of 79ddda5 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/release/v7.8.x/pr-7277
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/release/v7.8.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 79ddda54.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   modules/apps/27-interchain-accounts/host/keeper/keeper.go

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   CHANGELOG.md

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Bot user detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[damiannolan]

Test failure.. 👀

[damiannolan]

I cannot reproduce this unit test failure locally. All the tests pass on my machine

[DimitrisJim]

ah yea, this little trick 😅 did you ever get to the bottom of why tf this works?

[damiannolan]

I did not! 🫠

[damiannolan]

I think my recommendation would be to close this PR and not backport the change to the v7.8.x release line due to the instability and unpredictability with populating the module query safe allow list on different versions of Go.
We have not yet seen this issue cause problems for users on v7.x, and until then, I think its safe to continue using the merged proto file registry to populate the allowlist.

This backport PR demonstrates that if our tests are run on go1.19 and go1.22 then the allowlist will yield different results.
We cannot guarantee what go version that users downstream are running. And imo worst case scenario is that on a given network, validatorA upgrades their system to >go1.19 and validatorB remains on go1.19 which could lead to app hash mismatch. This should, in practise be unlikely, but we cannot guarantee it.

I think we should consider different approaches for populating the allow list for module safe queries in future. Maintaining the allow list manually is not optimal and poor ux, but there seems to be instability in the older versions of this proto/gogoproto code.

What do others think?