Discussion implementation

[RiccardoM]

Description

This PR implements the support for discussion as discussed into the proper issue.
Closes #13

Note. Please merge this after #42 and #44 have been merged.

Checklist

• Targeted PR against correct branch
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Wrote tests
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #48 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.66%.
The diff coverage is 65%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #48      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    81.47%   80.8%   -0.67%     
==========================================
  Files           13      14       +1     
  Lines          502     547      +45     
==========================================
+ Hits           409     442      +33     
- Misses          84      98      +14     
+ Partials         9       7       -2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/posts/internal/types/post.go	3.38% <0%> (-0.62%)	⬇️
x/posts/internal/keeper/querier.go	0% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
x/posts/internal/types/msgs.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
x/posts/internal/keeper/keeper.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
x/posts/internal/keeper/post_response.go	100% <100%> (ø)
x/posts/internal/keeper/handler.go	95.28% <100%> (+4.19%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d3f8199...7419cf7. Read the comment docs.

[kwunyeung]

I think we better follow the rule. https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments#initialisms

[RiccardoM]

Actually, by running the make lint command, if we change id to ID, the following error will be shown up:

x/posts/internal/types/post.go:77:14: captLocal: `ID' should not be capitalized (gocritic)
func NewPost(ID, parentID PostID, message string, allowsComments bool, created int64, owner sdk.AccAddress) Post {
             ^

I think we should following coding rules that can be automatically checked from GolangCI (which we should enable for this repo as the config file already exists)

[kwunyeung]

I think there is lacking of something. My original idea of having this kind of interaction is to cater some discussions on a specific purpose. The usual Post > Reply > Reply > Reply is already a discussion. The first use case I thought of was how to make this mechanism work on Cosmos Hub. For example, a discussion on the governance proposal. We have a lot of discussions on Telegram, just a few discussions on Cosmos forum. But if I'm a delegator which I'm not very always in the community, I will get lost in the Telegram discussion.

The solution to this is to attach a discussion forum directly on to the gov proposal page. I originally wanted to add a Riot chat on Big Dipper but found that delegators don't use Riot. Mintscan has done this (https://www.mintscan.io/proposals/19) but as you can see there is no discussion at all in any of the proposal as it's a Disqus where the users need to login with their centralized social login.

So my idea is to reference a Post to the governance proposal page on Big Dipper. Then Atom holders can discuss on the same page as the gov proposal with their delegator address. They don't have to show their names as only validators will be referenced with their monikers (we should build our decentralized social profile). When they keep replying the top level post of about this gov proposal, it's a discussion. The initial Post can only be submitted by the gov proposal proposer but this checking should be done on the frontend.

Let me know if this make sense and worth implementing. I do want to do this experiment though.

[RiccardoM]

I think there is lacking of something. My original idea of having this kind of interaction is to cater some discussions on a specific purpose. The usual Post > Reply > Reply > Reply is already a discussion. The first use case I thought of was how to make this mechanism work on Cosmos Hub. For example, a discussion on the governance proposal. We have a lot of discussions on Telegram, just a few discussions on Cosmos forum. But if I'm a delegator which I'm not very always in the community, I will get lost in the Telegram discussion.

The solution to this is to attach a discussion forum directly on to the gov proposal page. I originally wanted to add a Riot chat on Big Dipper but found that delegators don't use Riot. Mintscan has done this (https://www.mintscan.io/proposals/19) but as you can see there is no discussion at all in any of the proposal as it's a Disqus where the users need to login with their centralized social login.

So my idea is to reference a Post to the governance proposal page on Big Dipper. Then Atom holders can discuss on the same page as the gov proposal with their delegator address. They don't have to show their names as only validators will be referenced with their monikers (we should build our decentralized social profile). When they keep replying the top level post of about this gov proposal, it's a discussion. The initial Post can only be submitted by the gov proposal proposer but this checking should be done on the frontend.

Let me know if this make sense and worth implementing. I do want to do this experiment though.

I've added the ExternalReference field which should be sufficient to implement this use case and any other external-factor-referencing discussions.

[kwunyeung]

Looks good. Looking forward to see some demos.