fix: app-hash mismatch if upgrade migration commit is interrupted(backport cosmos/cosmos-sdk#13530)

[jaeseung-bae]

Description

• (audit issue) app-hash mismatch if upgrade migration commit is interrupted
  • backport: cosmos/cosmos-sdk#13530

Motivation and context

How has this been tested?

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Checklist:

• [x] I followed the contributing guidelines and code of conduct.
• [x] I have added a relevant changelog to CHANGELOG.md
• [ ] I have added tests to cover my changes.
• [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [ ] I have updated API documentation client/docs/swagger-ui/swagger.yaml

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

:white_check_mark: jaeseung-bae
:x: mmsqe
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 70.42%. Comparing base (e5709f3) to head (ab6defa). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/Finschia/finschia-sdk/pull/1310?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Finschia) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1310 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 70.41% 70.42% ======================================= Files 643 643 Lines 54759 54765 +6 ======================================= + Hits 38560 38566 +6 Misses 14024 14024 Partials 2175 2175 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/Finschia/finschia-sdk/pull/1310?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Finschia) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [store/rootmulti/store.go](https://app.codecov.io/gh/Finschia/finschia-sdk/pull/1310?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Finschia#diff-c3RvcmUvcm9vdG11bHRpL3N0b3JlLmdv) | `74.59% <100.00%> (+0.27%)` | :arrow_up: |

[jaeseung-bae]

Is it a breaking change? Theoretically, yes it is, but the consequence would be chain halt. In my opinion, we may backport the fix. I'd like to get opinions from other reviewers.

Thanks for the comment. I was a little bit confused with whether it's breaking change or not.

[jaeseung-bae]

Is it a breaking change? Theoretically, yes it is, but the consequence would be chain halt. In my opinion, we may backport the fix. I'd like to get opinions from other reviewers.

Thanks for the comment. I was a little bit confused with whether it's breaking change or not.

After I re-check, I concluded that it's not a consensus breaking change.

For reviewers, please feel free to comment any opinions on this.

[ulbqb]

I think this issue is about replaying blocks. Consensus wouldn't be related.