Burn assets by group key

[darioAnongba]

Enable burning of assets by specifying a group key.

• Add AssetSpecifier to tapcommon.proto and use it in the BurnAssetRequest
• Change tapcli to accept group_key param in tapd assets burn commands
• Update tapfreighter to support passing a group key in the asset specifier
• Update BurnAsset RPC request to accept an AssetSpecifier. Breaking change!
• Update integration tests

Example:

• Mint asset in group key X: 1000 units
• Mint asset in group X: 100 units
• Burn 1080 units
• Creates 3 outputs:
  • change: 20 units
  • burn output: 1000 units
  • burn output: 80 units

[GeorgeTsagk]

Great work!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18141060997

Details

• 106 of 299 (35.45%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
• 65 unchanged lines in 16 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.05%) to 56.466%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
taprpc/taprootassets.pb.go	0	5	0.0%
tapfreighter/wallet.go	24	35	68.57%
taprpc/tapcommon.pb.go	30	68	44.12%
rpcserver.go	52	96	54.17%
cmd/commands/assets.go	0	95	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
fn/context_guard.go	1	91.94%
address/mock.go	2	96.2%
mssmt/compacted_tree.go	2	77.65%
tapdb/mssmt.go	2	90.45%
tapdb/multiverse.go	2	80.59%
tapdb/sqlc/transfers.sql.go	2	83.33%
tapgarden/custodian.go	2	76.83%
universe_rpc_diff.go	2	76.0%
universe/syncer.go	2	84.22%
itest/assertions.go	3	87.67%

Totals
Change from base Build 18140243029:	-0.05%
Covered Lines:	63754
Relevant Lines:	112906

---

💛 - Coveralls

[ffranr]

I think this should have base branch 0-8-0-staging?

[darioAnongba]

comments applied (and answered) and pointed to 0-8-0-staging

[GeorgeTsagk]

getting there
some final Qs

[GeorgeTsagk]

LGTM, pending some nits

[GeorgeTsagk]

We'll have to rebase 0-8-0-staging on main in order to get the LiT tests working again (there were some version bumps)

[darioAnongba]

Oops @GeorgeTsagk, deleted a comment but wasn't on purpose. Here is the response:

Yes, I found them particularly annoying and they didn't help since in the tests I can either log anything I want to debug or apply an assertion as part of the test. Especially when we are dumping the entire response multiple times in the test.

[GeorgeTsagk]

re-ACKing