feat: Add defensive replay protection check into WriteAcknowledgement

[hoangdv2429]

Description

closes: #5740

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Targeted PR against the 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 and Go style guide.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/).
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Provide a commit message to be used for the changelog entry in the PR description for review.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.
• Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

[hoangdv2429]

I think the e2e test is flaking again, can someone rerun it

[crodriguezvega]

Thank you, @hoangdv2429. I think the original intention of the issue is to add the check in 04-channel's WriteAcknowledgement, so that all middleware/applications can benefit from it. If we add the check only in ics29 middleware, then only the fee middleware will be protected against the replay attack.

[hoangdv2429]

Thank you, @hoangdv2429. I think the original intention of the issue is to add the check in 04-channel's WriteAcknowledgement, so that all middleware/applications can benefit from it. If we add the check only in ics29 middleware, then only the fee middleware will be protected against the replay attack.

Got it sir. I'll update it

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.61%. Comparing base (1c0c756) to head (1bfdfe4).
Report is 51 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 1bfdfe4 differs from pull request most recent head ee7a95d. Consider uploading reports for the commit ee7a95d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5880      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.59%   81.61%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         199      198       -1     
  Lines       15167    12114    -3053     
==========================================
- Hits        12375     9887    -2488     
+ Misses       2326     1765     -561     
+ Partials      466      462       -4     

Files	Coverage Δ
modules/core/04-channel/keeper/packet.go	99.17% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

... and 171 files with indirect coverage changes

[crodriguezvega]

Thanks for changing the code, @hoangdv2429. It would fantastic if you could also a test. You can take as example the test that was added for the same check in RecvPacket here. Thank you!

[crodriguezvega]

Nice work, @hoangdv2429!

[damiannolan]

Looks good! LGTM! Thank you @hoangdv2429 🙏🏻

[colin-axner]

Thanks @hoangdv2429! LGTM, I left a suggested improvement for the in code documentation