Problem: unnecessary GetBalance in ante handlers

[mmsqe]

reuse balance after verify account balance to avoid get again when check can transfer

benchmark need remove the skip part

pkg: github.com/crypto-org-chain/cronos/v2/app
                                │  before.txt  │             after.txt             │
                                │    sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base              │
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-1-12    870.5m ±  7%   866.1m ± 1%       ~ (p=0.699 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-8-12    180.7m ±  4%   174.9m ± 4%       ~ (p=0.065 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-16-12   205.6m ± 19%   198.5m ± 4%       ~ (p=0.180 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-32-12   243.7m ± 10%   247.1m ± 8%       ~ (p=0.818 n=6)
geomean                           297.9m         293.6m       -1.46%

                                │  before.txt  │             after.txt              │
                                │     B/op     │     B/op      vs base              │
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-1-12    475.9Mi ± 0%   482.4Mi ± 0%  +1.36% (p=0.002 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-8-12    484.9Mi ± 0%   491.7Mi ± 0%  +1.39% (p=0.002 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-16-12   498.6Mi ± 1%   505.4Mi ± 0%  +1.36% (p=0.002 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-32-12   523.4Mi ± 1%   532.6Mi ± 1%  +1.77% (p=0.002 n=6)
geomean                           495.4Mi        502.7Mi       +1.47%

                                │ before.txt  │             after.txt             │
                                │  allocs/op  │  allocs/op   vs base              │
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-1-12    5.998M ± 0%   6.023M ± 0%  +0.42% (p=0.002 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-8-12    6.127M ± 0%   6.153M ± 0%  +0.42% (p=0.002 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-16-12   6.347M ± 1%   6.365M ± 0%  +0.28% (p=0.041 n=6)
ERC20Transfer/memiavl-stm-32-12   6.758M ± 2%   6.801M ± 2%       ~ (p=0.240 n=6)
geomean                           6.301M        6.329M       +0.44%

Description

---

For contributor use:

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards.
• Wrote unit and integration tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

---

For admin use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. WIP, R4R, docs, etc)
• Reviewers assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.90909% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 61.60%. Comparing base (fe3f4fd) to head (8f89bb1).

Files	Patch %	Lines
app/ante/handler_options.go	33.33%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #514      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    61.57%   61.60%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          128      128              
  Lines         9512     9520       +8     
===========================================
+ Hits          5857     5865       +8     
  Misses        3115     3115              
  Partials       540      540              

Files	Coverage Δ
app/ante/eth.go	80.43% <100.00%> (+1.04%)	⬆️
app/ante/handler_options.go	61.95% <33.33%> (+0.41%)	⬆️

[mmsqe]

balance could be nil, but there was no nil check before

[yihuang]

try to reproduce in integration test?

[yihuang]

again, how does this affect the benchmark result, I guess the effect of this is even smaller than the account PR, which is almost unnoticeable in the benchmark result.

[mmsqe]

again, how does this affect the benchmark result, I guess the effect of this is even smaller than the account PR, which is almost unnoticeable in the benchmark result.

Do you mean GetBalance is faster than GetAccount, no need to cache?

[yihuang]

again, how does this affect the benchmark result, I guess the effect of this is even smaller than the account PR, which is almost unnoticeable in the benchmark result.

Do you mean GetBalance is faster than GetAccount, no need to cache?

what do you think we are caching here? the raw bytes fetched from db is already cached by cachekv store, so what we are caching here is just to avoid the decoding step, if the decoding speed is similar to or even faster than the added map operations, then there's no point to add this cache, right?