[Docs][Upgrades] Add safeguards for upgrades

[okdas]

Objective

In a recent update, the staking_fee parameter was inadvertently set to null, causing supplier staking commands to fail. This issue aims to outline the lessons learned and implement safeguards to prevent similar oversights.

Origin Document

https://discord.com/channels/553741558869131266/1234943674903953529/1338251927946789056

Goals

• Ensure that key parameters (such as staking_fee) are never set to null in future deployments.
• Enhance E2E and automated testing to catch missing or invalid parameters before a release
• Define a clear upgrade process to validate parameter changes on Alpha before promoting them to Beta.

Deliverables

• Document the root cause of how the staking_fee parameter became null.
• Update E2E tests to specifically verify parameter validity (e.g., ensuring staking_fee is not null).
• Create automated checks or scripts that confirm parameter correctness in pre-release stages.
• Add a step in the upgrade documentation/process for verifying all key parameters.
• Ensure basic parameter validation inside the upgrade handlers (docs, copy-paste, etc...) like so (for example):

   sharedParams := k.sharedKeeper.Params(ctx)
   if err := sharedParams.ValidateBasic() {
     panic(err)
   }
   ...

Non-goals / Non-deliverables

• Revisiting unrelated parameters that were not affected by the recent change.
• Overhauling the entire upgrade process beyond the parameter checks related to this issue.

---

Creator: @okdas
Co-owner: @Olshansk

[okdas]

The place where hard-coded params were replaced with GetParams, but wrong parameter was updated.

[Olshansk]

@okdas Great ticket. I've updated a few details and added the example from @red-0ne as well.