chore: remove govdao dependency in r/gov/dao/bridge

[leohhhn]

Description

Cherry-picked from: #3166

This PR removes the r/gov/dao/v2 import from the r/gov/dao/bridge realm. Previously, cyclic imports were easily created if a realm imported the bridge realm (to expose a executor constructor func), and GovDAO imported that realm. In my case:

• r/sys/users imported r/gov/dao/bridge to create executor constructors
• r/gov/dao/bridge imported r/gov/dao/v2 to have access to the implementation
• r/gov/dao/v2 imported r/sys/users to have access to user data.
• -> creating a cyclic dependency which is not allowed.

This is fixed by modifying the r/gov/dao/v2 contract to expose a safe-object, which in turn exposes all top-level functions as methods. Then, the bridge uses a one-time init package which will load v2 into the bridge in genesis, as per @moul's comment.

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🟢 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:

1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
   • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
   • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
   • Update documentation, if required.
   • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
   • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.

☑️ Reviewer Actions:

1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.

📚 Resources:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

Debug

Automated Checks

Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: leohhhn/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 If
    ├── 🟢 Condition
    │   └── 🟢 Or
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the organization reviewed the pull request (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)

Manual Checks

**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

• Any user with comment edit permission

[leohhhn]

Fixing tests...

[moul]

#3166 (comment)

[leohhhn]

Lint has a bug, will write an issue on it. To be ignored for now.

• gno lint actually executes code #3547

[ajnavarro]

LGTM, just two small comments. I would love to have some review from @zivkovicmilos too.

[zivkovicmilos]

Blocking until I review 🙏

[moul]

LGTM

[zivkovicmilos]

Unblocking this PR, but left comments below, more as a historical reference. I see @moul has no objections to the way we use indirection and increase complexity for the bridge management, which signals to me this is not important, and I shouldn't care either 🙂

This is also not entirely true:

r/gov/dao/v2 imported r/sys/users to have access to user data.

The GovDAO doesn't need a dependency on users for any critical function, but only to render the usernames. Let that sync in, we're trading this insane orchestration complexity for resolving an address to a username in a user-render function.

I spoke to @ajnavarro, we are dropping the bridge in future DAO implementations anyway for a more scalable method

[zivkovicmilos]

Check the CI please 🙏

[leohhhn]

Waiting on #3597 to merge