refactor cli-output large functions and add starting epoch for rewards #3085
Conversation
sakridge
changed the title
sakridge
changed the title
sakridge
force-pushed
the
refactor-cli-output
branch
2 times, most recently
from
86242f3
to
d15a944
Compare
sakridge
changed the title
sakridge
force-pushed
the
refactor-cli-output
branch
from
d15a944
to
6faf55a
Compare
| build_balance_message(active_stake, me.use_lamports_unit, true), | ||
| )?; | ||
| let activating_stake = me.activating_stake.or_else(|| { | ||
| if me.active_stake.is_none() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think might be simplified:
me.active_stake.is_none().then_some(delegated_stake)There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think another PR is best, I just wanted to move the logic as-is to make sure functionality is identical.
| rpc_client | ||
| .get_epoch_info()? | ||
| .epoch | ||
| .saturating_sub(num_epochs as u64) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't quite understand why do we subtract num_epochs now (before we didn't). Before we subtract 1 in the loop before calling get_inflation_reward so maybe should be also here subtract 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the loop was proceeding backwards by epoch before always from the newest epoch. I reversed the direction to now start at the older epoch and then move forward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
num_epochs has to be at least 1. So it will subtract 1 here in the default case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Problem
Large functions in cli-output make the code hard to read.
No way to offset into the stake and vote rewards in case the user wants past rewards
Summary of Changes
Refactor functions into smaller ones.
Add
--starting-epoch <EPOCH_NUM>argument tosolana vote-account --with-rewardsorstake-accountcommands.Fixes #