Skip to content

Conversation

kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor

@kristapsk kristapsk commented Jul 4, 2020

This is #14898 rebased against current master, review comments addressed and help text updated with output changes when pageinatebypointer option is used.

Added fifth param to listtransactions named options, Previous skip argument is replaced with options, with backwards compatibility, where it's treated as a skip if it's integer, not an object. options may be an object containing paginatebypointer (boolean default: false) and nextpagepointer (string default: OMITTED).~

With paginatebypointer output will have the following changes.

  1. Return transactions is ordered by most recent transactions. Though the default does reverse the order after transactions are fetched and clipped.
  2. skip argument has no effect. Instead nextpagepointer will be used for pagination.
  3. Return value is an object containing, records (array of txs) and nextpagepointer (string)

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Jul 4, 2020

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
Concept ACK instagibbs

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

@instagibbs
Copy link
Member

concept ACK, this is a pretty straight forward improvement I think as far as an API is concerned. Would be helpful to find people needing this API to test.

@kristapsk kristapsk force-pushed the listtransactions-paginatebypointer branch from 4d64902 to fd18204 Compare August 26, 2020 21:30
@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

Addressed review comment by @luke-jr , agree this way is better.

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased (+ options|skip changes required by #19994).

Added fifth param to `listtransactions` named `options`, `options` may be an object containing `paginatebypointer` (boolean default: false) and `nextpagepointer` (string default: OMITTED).

With `paginatebypointer` output will have the following changes.

1. Return transactions is ordered by most recent transactions. Though the default does reverse the order after transactions are fetched and clipped.
2. `skip` argument has no effect. Instead `nextpagepointer` will be used for pagination.
3. Return value is an object containing, records (array of txs) and nextpagepointer (string)

Co-authored-by: Kristaps Kaupe <kristaps@blogiem.lv>
@kristapsk kristapsk force-pushed the listtransactions-paginatebypointer branch from d233809 to 480df47 Compare December 14, 2020 00:42
@@ -4492,7 +4652,7 @@ static const CRPCCommand commands[] =
{ "wallet", "listreceivedbyaddress", &listreceivedbyaddress, {"minconf","include_empty","include_watchonly","address_filter"} },
{ "wallet", "listreceivedbylabel", &listreceivedbylabel, {"minconf","include_empty","include_watchonly"} },
{ "wallet", "listsinceblock", &listsinceblock, {"blockhash","target_confirmations","include_watchonly","include_removed"} },
{ "wallet", "listtransactions", &listtransactions, {"label|dummy","count","skip","include_watchonly"} },
{ "wallet", "listtransactions", &listtransactions, {"label|dummy","count","options|skip","include_watchonly"} },
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can remove this diff, and then rebase

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

Want to unsubscribe from rebase notifications on this pull request? Just convert this pull request to a "draft".

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 25, 2021

Tried this with new argument added according to the examples. TBH this looks complex compared to PR 22775 or maybe I am not using it correctly. Only thing I noticed different which could be helpful in some cases was nextpagepointer in results.

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@prayank23 Most of the complexity is for paginatebypointer. Probably I could rebase this and split into two commits, then adding options object as a second argument could be applied to #22775 separately.

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

kristapsk commented Aug 26, 2021

I'm putting this on hold and not going to rebase until either #19762 or #22807 is merged, don't think anymore it's good idea to add additional positional arguments to listtransactions for this.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?
  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

@glozow
Copy link
Member

glozow commented Sep 26, 2022

@kristapsk are you still working on this?

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@glozow Waiting on #19762, will it be merged or rejected.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Sep 26, 2022

#19762 shouldn't be relevant to this. Even if both named and positional are supported, the pure positional API should be clean.

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@luke-jr So you think it's worth resuming work on #22807?

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Sep 26, 2022

Yes

@kristapsk
Copy link
Contributor Author

#22807 is rebased, don't think it's worth rebasing this before that one is either merged or rejected.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

don't think it's worth rebasing this before that one is either merged or rejected.

Made this a draft for now then.

@fanquake fanquake marked this pull request as draft January 12, 2023 13:45
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

1 similar comment
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Sep 20, 2023

Are you still working on this? If not, maybe close for now?

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

@glozow
Copy link
Member

glozow commented Dec 20, 2023

Closing due to lack of activity. Feel free to ping if this is picked up again.

@glozow glozow closed this Dec 20, 2023
@bitcoin bitcoin locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 19, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants