refactor: cctx validate inbound

[skosito]

Description

NOTE: do not merge since it needs one more review and to make review of base branch PR easier.

Left some open points for discussion in comments.

Closes: #2277

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Include instructions and any relevant details so others can reproduce.

• Tested CCTX in localnet
• Tested in development environment
• Go unit tests
• Go integration tests
• Tested via GitHub Actions

Checklist:

• I have added unit tests that prove my fix feature works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.73%. Comparing base (ca9b90f) to head (7f3bf86).

❗ Current head 7f3bf86 differs from pull request most recent head e835137

Please upload reports for the commit e835137 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2340      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    68.66%   68.73%   +0.06%     
===========================================
  Files          302      304       +2     
  Lines        19153    19169      +16     
===========================================
+ Hits         13152    13176      +24     
+ Misses        5351     5347       -4     
+ Partials       650      646       -4     

Files	Coverage Δ
app/app.go	2.18% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
x/crosschain/keeper/cctx_gateway_observers.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/crosschain/keeper/cctx_gateway_zevm.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/crosschain/keeper/cctx_gateways.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...hain/keeper/cctx_orchestrator_validate_outbound.go	94.92% <100.00%> (ø)
x/crosschain/keeper/cctx_utils.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
x/crosschain/keeper/evm_deposit.go	91.25% <100.00%> (ø)
.../crosschain/keeper/msg_server_migrate_tss_funds.go	83.44% <100.00%> (+0.22%)	⬆️
x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server_vote_inbound_tx.go	100.00% <100.00%> (+8.00%)	⬆️
x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server_whitelist_erc20.go	80.15% <100.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
... and 4 more

... and 34 files with indirect coverage changes

[lumtis]

I think we can rename this PR as refactor instead of feat.
Same for #2317

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
11759679	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	86c1f5c	cmd/zetae2e/local/accounts.go	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}