use ecosystem convention for keeper names in app.go

[faddat]

This PR changes keeper names in app.go to match the commonly used ecosystem conventional style, which:

• Makes wasmd easier to reference
• Makes upgrading wasmd easier, because there will be fewer merge conflicts

[faddat]

My preference here is to first:

• merge Update config.yml #883
• merge close 815: upgrade to go 1.18 #866

The specific reason is that go 1.18 will change some of the supported linters. We could then dial in on the ones that we think are valuable, and also exclude anything that isn't.

[alpe]

Thanks for bringing this up! 🌻

I have seen public fields in other apps, too. I was always wondering why break encapsulation without a need.
I can see public fields being helpful with the test suite pattern used in sdk and elsewhere. Do you have other examples?

Makes wasmd easier to reference

what do you mean with this?

[faddat]

@alpe - the practice that I openly recommend to other developers when constructing app.go is to very literally copy and paste. Being generally the same as other chains makes that easier.

re: encapsulation, and having a standard on these-- I have wondered same as yourself.

from the perspective of someone working on Juno, who'd like to move changes between wasmd and juno, adopting this standard would make upstreaming work into wasmd easier.

[ethanfrey]

from the perspective of someone working on Juno, who'd like to move changes between wasmd and juno, adopting this standard would make upstreaming work into wasmd easier.

I agree 💯 with you that we should have a standard and the same format in wasmd, osmosis and Juno.

However, Alex's question was why Juno's approach is better than the wasmd approach. Maybe you or another Juno dev can explain why these are needed to be public. (I have some ideas, but I prefer feedback from actual users)

[faddat]

@ethanfrey honestly I don't see a reason in either direction, 🤣

I think this is purely about following convention and making merges easier.

[faddat]

OK, this one is ready to rock. After merging this and #815, the review scope for #863 will drop a great deal.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #882 (df44859) into main (4525d51) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 78.97%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #882   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.14%   59.14%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines        6198     6198           
=======================================
  Hits         3666     3666           
  Misses       2265     2265           
  Partials      267      267           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
app/test_access.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
app/test_helpers.go	0.84% <0.00%> (ø)
app/export.go	12.12% <4.16%> (ø)
x/wasm/keeper/ibc.go	77.77% <33.33%> (ø)
x/wasm/module.go	49.45% <66.66%> (ø)
app/app.go	88.91% <98.62%> (ø)
x/wasm/keeper/handler_plugin.go	85.14% <100.00%> (ø)
x/wasm/keeper/keeper.go	88.23% <100.00%> (ø)

[alpe]

Thanks for the PR and bringing this topic up! I was pending for a while now due to my other priorities but I polished your commits in #951.