[refactor prompt] Add support for show method group (pt 2)

[jseagrave21]

What current issue(s) does this address, or what feature is it adding?

• Reference [refactor prompt] Adds support and tests for the show method group and the search method group #737

• This PR supports the last five methods from the show method group (see Refactor prompt commands to be plugin based #623 (comment))

How did you solve this problem?
Trial and Error

How did you make sure your solution works?
Unittest

Are there any special changes in the code that we should be aware of?

• ShowAllAssets was added so show assets mirrors show contracts

  • originally implemented here Update/Add Asset and Contract Search Methods #667

• Added the ability to use 'neo' or 'gas' to show the corresponding assets

  • originally implemented here Update/Add Asset and Contract Search Methods #667

Please check the following, if applicable:

• Did you add any tests?
• Did you run make lint?
• Did you run make test?
• Are you making a PR to a feature branch or development rather than master?
• Did you add an entry to CHANGELOG.rst? (if not, please do)

[ixje]

neo> show notifications -1
Could not parse block height can't convert negative int to unsigned

neo> show notifications bla
Could not parse block height invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'bla'

neo> show notifications
Could not execute command: object of type 'NoneType' has no len()
  File "/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/lib/python3.6/threading.py", line 884, in _bootstrap
    self._bootstrap_inner()
  File "/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/lib/python3.6/threading.py", line 916, in _bootstrap_inner
    self.run()
  File "/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/lib/python3.6/
and then some

unfriendly error message for an invalid arguments

similar errors are also present for show contract 234 and show asset 234. I stopped reviewing at this point. Please do some manual testing, as these can be captured before PR'ing. Thanks!

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.2%) to 84.502% when pulling 6696ff0 on jseagrave21:refactor-CommandShow-pt2 into cfefd13 on CityOfZion:refactor-prompt.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.4%) to 84.69% when pulling 594074c on jseagrave21:refactor-CommandShow-pt2 into cfefd13 on CityOfZion:refactor-prompt.

[jseagrave21]

Not sure what is going on with coveralls but clicking on the latest coveralls comment here shows accurate coverage of Show.py. However, I don't understand the "uncovered" lines, I don't think that is accurate.

@ixje @LysanderGG I think this PR is ready for another review.

[ixje]

Functionality wise all seems to work 👍

Just a couple of aesthetic changes for a nicer user experience:

Usage: show contract {hash/all}

hash/all        - the scripthash of the contract, or "all" shows all contracts

Usage: show asset {name/assetId/all}

name/assetId/all - the name or assetId of the asset, or "all" shows all assets

Usage: show notifications {block_index/address/contract_hash}

block_index/address/contract_hash - the block, address, or contract to show notifications for

As you see the above doesn't look really clean. Meaning; too many words and repetition of the same information. It seems to be a reoccurring theme where we have 1 param that accepts multiple formats. I'd like to replace the ParamDesc().name with a 1 word identifier (as the docs say 😉), such that it looks more compact/cleaner and the ParamDesc().description gives the details.

I'm looking for a word that would neatly express a group of possible input options. I don't think args is a good fit. My current best idea is specifier or identifier but it doesn't feel smooth or accurate. I'm hoping for ideas from you :)

The end result could then be e.g.

Usage: show notifications {identifier}

identifier - the block, address, or contract to show notifications for

PS: We might have to go back and see what previous merged commands also face this issue and clean them up.

[jseagrave21]

I'm looking for a word that would neatly express a group of possible input options. I don't think args is a good fit. My current best idea is specifier or identifier but it doesn't feel smooth or accurate. I'm hoping for ideas from you :)

I am thinking "attribute" which is in line with Python

[ixje]

I am thinking "attribute" which is in line with Python

Let's do it!

[jseagrave21]

Note to self (cc @ixje): Prior to merging remember to

• Update contractstate to match parody with neo-cli (see Fix getcontractstate to match neo-cli #750)
• Update Show.py. Specifically,CommandShowContract to remove mention of 'code' key.

[ixje]

#750 is merged, I approved the new changes. Let me know when you think it's ready.

[jseagrave21]

@ixje I think this PR should be good to go 👍

[ixje]

💯