fix swap-by-denom response

[99adarsh]

Description

Closes:

• https://github.com/elys-network/issues/issues/XXX
• https://github.com/elys-network/issues/issues/XXX

What has Changed?

What specific problem were you aiming to address, and how did you successfully resolve it? If tests were not uploaded for this pull request or if coverage decreased, please provide an explanation for the change.

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

Deployment Notes

Are there any specific considerations to take into account when deploying these changes? This may include new dependencies, scripts that need to be executed, or any aspects that can only be evaluated in a deployed environment.

Screenshots and Videos

Please provide any relevant before and after screenshots by uploading them here. Additionally, demo videos can be highly beneficial in demonstrating the process.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 44.12%. Comparing base (ccf272a) to head (ea79340).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1040   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   44.12%   44.12%           
=======================================
  Files         935      935           
  Lines       35559    35559           
=======================================
  Hits        15691    15691           
  Misses      18563    18563           
  Partials     1305     1305           

Components	Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions	80.06% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle	82.72% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper	85.41% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries	8.94% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions	100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries	65.04% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions	73.33% <0.00%> (ø)
amm_lifecycle	90.66% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper	58.45% <ø> (ø)
amm_queries	44.75% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_transactions	76.85% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
assetprofile_keeper	80.00% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_queries	60.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_transactions	0.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
burner_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_queries	62.01% <ø> (ø)
commitment_transactions	78.29% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper	86.17% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries	32.46% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle	92.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper	84.61% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries	26.78% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions	68.93% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle	82.60% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper	72.64% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries	32.71% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper	∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_queries	∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions	86.85% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle	74.87% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries	26.73% <ø> (ø)
oracle_transactions	27.27% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle	30.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper	61.11% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries	12.73% <ø> (ø)
parameter_transactions	18.86% <ø> (ø)
parameter_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
parameter_keeper	75.00% <ø> (ø)
parameter_queries	57.14% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_transactions	83.20% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle	100.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper	90.47% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries	100.00% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_transactions	82.43% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_lifecycle	90.90% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_keeper	62.38% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_queries	61.32% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions	25.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_keeper	90.90% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries	4.84% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_transactions	71.87% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper	80.00% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries	69.60% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries	11.11% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_transactions	75.54% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
tradeshield_keeper	90.90% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_queries	21.55% <ø> (ø)

[cosmic-vagabond]

@99adarsh those changes were added to #1043 closing this one