Decide on a convention for naming wasm byte code/byte code hash.

[DimitrisJim]

Summary

This is unfortunately a messy situation at the moment.

For the wasm code, specifically:

• code_bytes in Contract stored in GenesisState.
• wasm_byte_code in MsgStoreCode.

For the codeHash/checkSum:

• checkSum in MsgStoreCodeResponse
• codeHash in both ClientState and used in messages/names for the CodeHashes rpc.

The mockVM added also introduced some names that are used in wasmd: WasmCode/CheckSum as the types and codeID/checksum as names, there's some discrepancy here that can be cleaned easily (codeID being used for both code/codeHash in these funcs, PinFn having it named checksum).

---

All these names make it difficult to follow along and make it easy to make subtle mistakes. It would be nice if all we had some form of consistency.

---

For Admin Use

• Not duplicate issue
• Appropriate labels applied
• Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned

[DimitrisJim]

Note that codeID is also a separate concept in wasmd and is used for storing CodeInfo's in state.

[crodriguezvega]

For the wasm code, specifically:

code_bytes in Contract stored in GenesisState.
wasm_byte_code in MsgStoreCode.
For the codeHash/checkSum:

checkSum in MsgStoreCodeResponse
codeHash in both ClientState and used in messages/names for the CodeHashes rpc.

In this PR I chose those names to follow wasmd's convention. During the walkthrough we agreed to keep the naming like that.

I agree though that it's probably a good idea to change the naming in the mock functions to avoid the codeId / codeHash confusion.

[DimitrisJim]

yeah, for one I think maybe the response for StoreCode should be the same as what is then used directly in ClientState?

[crodriguezvega]

Closed by #5030