feat: foo20 check an error from grc20 package

[r3v4s]

detailed infos are described in #857

TL;DR
foo20 relam doesn't check error from grc20 package.

• for example sending to address itself should fail, but currently runs fine

Checklists...

Contributors Checklist

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

Maintainers Checklist

• Checked that the author followed the guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md
• Checked the conventional-commit (especially PR title and verb, presence of BREAKING CHANGE: in the body)
• Ensured that this PR is not a significant change or confirmed that the review/consideration process was appropriate for the change

[moul]

Related with #952

[harry-hov]

Maybe add another case?

	invalid := std.Address("invalid")

[r3v4s]

grc20 package uses checkIsValidAddress to check whether address is valid or not.

gno/examples/gno.land/p/demo/grc/grc20/util.gno

Lines 7 to 12 in 973be98

	func checkIsValidAddress(addr std.Address) error {
	if addr.String() == "" {
	return ErrInvalidAddress
	}
	return nil
	}

unfortunately it only checks addr.String() == "", so that invalid won't be invalid but valid.

[r3v4s]

perhaps better to rename above function to checkIsEmptyAddress

[waymobetta]

Ethereum ecosystem libs like Ethers and web3.js commonly utilize the isAddress terminology, if the aim is for close parity or to minimize confusion errors for devs.

SO answer with additional context.

[moul]

Let's handle this in the other refactor #952.

In this particular case, using isAddress doesn't seem suitable because we're dealing with an std.Address object and checking its validity.

Creating a more general method like std.Address{}.IsValid() would be more appropriate in the future. For now, I'll focus on improving the check in the other PR or add a comment for clarification.

Thank you all for your suggestions.