refactor!: extract nft protos

[julienrbrt]

Description

ref: #13363, related to adr-54 discussions

Attempt to do the above for NFT.

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[julienrbrt]

I cannot push this because buf.build/cosmos/cosmos-sdk already defines it.
Looking how to force the push with the use of draft commits.

[julienrbrt]

Failure: failed to push module, pushing a module with a dependency pinned to a draft commit is not allowed, dependency "buf.build/cosmos/cosmos-sdk" is pinning to a draft commit "eb123a948f1c4f12881e020940fe007b"

🤡

We can publish only in a follow-up, but generation works, so everything is ok.
I have not added any proto-registry GH Action workflow, as we still need to decide when to publish.
@AmauryM's argument (cosmos/cosmos-proto#94 (review)) is getting relevant here too.

[kocubinski]

I'm not too sure about this, see #13363 (comment)

[julienrbrt]

I'm not too sure about this, see #13363 (comment)

Actually, here I purposely not created another go.mod. What is the use case of that extra go.mod?

[kocubinski]

So we'd move the proto files to /x/nft/proto but generate pulsar types to /api?

Edit: It doesn't look like this PR is doing the above. If we don't generate an API module (either monolith or one per module) I don't see how we can resolve many of our cyclic dependency issues.

[julienrbrt]

So we'd move the proto files to /x/nft/proto but generate pulsar types to /api?

Edit: It doesn't look like this PR is doing the above. If we don't generate an API module (either monolith or one per module) I don't see how we can resolve many of our cyclic dependency issues.

No, I indeed meant having the pulsar types directly in the module.

[kocubinski]

If that's the case, we should be aware that, as written, this PR's approach will hard block cyclic dependency resolution behind an SDK rewrite of SOA over ABI as described in #15410, which is still in design/planning (RFC phase).

I guess I'm suggesting we hold off on this refactor for now until SOA over ABI is further along, so that we can explore pulsar adoption and composable SDK modules apart from that workstream.

[julienrbrt]

If that's the case, we should be aware that, as written, this PR's approach will hard block cyclic dependency resolution behind an SDK rewrite of SOA over ABI as described in #15410, which is still in design/planning (RFC phase).

I guess I'm suggesting we hold off on this refactor for now until SOA over ABI is further along, so that we can explore pulsar adoption and composable SDK modules apart from that workstream.

Fine by me! I am curious how it should look for non SDK modules, however. Do they need their API module as well?

[kocubinski]

I am curious how it should look for non SDK modules, however. Do they need their API module as well?

How an implementer chooses to organize their code is their choice, so far I don't see a need to impose our design or opinions since non-sdk modules will depend on sdk modules, but sdk modules won't depend on non-sdk modules.

[julienrbrt]

Closing for now, let's see if we actually need that in next meeting.