feat: ensure liquidity mining NFT id is within reserved range

[Roznovjak]

Fixes: #427

[github-actions]

Runtime version has not been increased.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #444 (c4fcdfa) into master (72fe3a1) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head c4fcdfa differs from pull request most recent head 0070608. Consider uploading reports for the commit 0070608 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #444      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.02%   84.04%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        3093     3096       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         2599     2602       +3     
  Misses        494      494              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pallets/liquidity-mining/src/lib.rs	85.32% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 026e3b5...0070608. Read the comment docs.

[mrq1911]

@Roznovjak can you add test that check works like expected?

[Roznovjak]

@Roznovjak can you add test that check works like expected?

A test is automatically generated from it. But it's more like a verification, because testing it (both scenarios) would require two runtimes with different pallet configurations.

[mrq1911]

@Roznovjak can you add test that check works like expected?

A test is automatically generated from it. But it's more like a verification, because testing it (both scenarios) would require two runtimes with different pallet configurations.

when it actually panics? after runtime upgrade?

[Roznovjak]

@Roznovjak can you add test that check works like expected?

A test is automatically generated from it. But it's more like a verification, because testing it (both scenarios) would require two runtimes with different pallet configurations.

when it actually panics? after runtime upgrade?

It looks like it behaves just like a normal test. Ref

[mrq1911]

found the test: test mock::__construct_runtime_integrity_test::runtime_integrity_tests ... ok

LGTM