add pagination to x/staking queries

[jgimeno]

Description

closes: #6109

[auto-comment]

👋 Thanks for creating a PR!

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

---

For contributor use:

• Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Code follows the module structure standards.
• Wrote unit and integration tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
• Added relevant godoc comments.
• Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer

---

For admin use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. WIP, R4R, docs, etc)
• Reviewers assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

Thank you for your contribution to the Cosmos-SDK! 🚀

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6163 into master will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 43.47%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6163      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.75%   55.75%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         450      450              
  Lines       27055    27073      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        15084    15094      +10     
- Misses      10888    10896       +8     
  Partials     1083     1083              

[aaronc]

@aaronc that is something that called my attention too!

This is something that I can add here for this specific case, or create another issue for all paginations, because all paginated results as far as I know use this approach which is not optimal.

I mean if it's not hard to do my preference would be to not put more code into production using an approach we know we're going to change...

Either way I'm opening an issue now to document the proposed approach.

[aaronc]

@jgimeno see #6191

[alexanderbez]

utACK

[aaronc]

So is the decision not to address #6191 in this PR? And instead wait for when we get to gRPC? That's fine by me, just checking

[alessio]

BTW the client.Paginate function smells a bit bad, i.e. try pass a negative page value. We may want to address that in a separate PR though (cc'ing @jgimeno)

[alexanderbez]

So is the decision not to address #6191 in this PR? And instead wait for when we get to gRPC? That's fine by me, just checking

It's not being done in this PR but not necessarily blocked by gRPC either. We can do it before gRPC and in one fell swoop.

BTW the client.Paginate function smells a bit bad, i.e. try pass a negative page value. We may want to address that in a separate PR though (cc'ing @jgimeno)

Yes, the check should be page <= 0.

[jgimeno]

I prefer using another PR for the changes documented in #6191

[aaronc]

I prefer using another PR for the changes documented in #6191

That's fine by me

[aaronc]

So is the decision not to address #6191 in this PR? And instead wait for when we get to gRPC? That's fine by me, just checking

It's not being done in this PR but not necessarily blocked by gRPC either. We can do it before gRPC and in one fell swoop.

I actually think it'd be better to only do it for gRPC so that the existing REST endpoints don't change... I think that will allow clients a more graceful transition period

[alexanderbez]

@aaronc I'd advise that existing REST endpoints do change. We never stated REST endpoints are frozen or not subject to change. We should have the same correct pagination logic for gRPC as well as the existing REST handlers. However, since we'll eventually sunset the existing REST handlers, it might not even be worth it.

[tac0turtle]

whats the status with this pr? good to merge or close?

[aaronc]

My thought is that it's fine to merge this as is and we'll do better pagination in the future (#6191)

[tac0turtle]

@jgimeno can you resolve the conflicts please

[jgimeno]

Ready @marbar3778 !!

[tac0turtle]

@Mergifyio refresh

[mergify]

Command refresh: success