change(rpc): return u64 from get_network_sol_ps and remove arbitrary_precision feature from serde

[arya2]

Motivation

Mining RPCs responding with the network solution rate added in #5808 are returning a u128, requiring the arbitrary_precision feature from serde.

There are issues open in serde about the arbitrary_precision feature (see serde-rs/json#505 and serde-rs/serde#1183). We haven't run into these issues but we only need u64 for any feasible solution rate that might be returned anyways, so we should use a u64 instead of a u128.

Solution

• Cast solution_rate to a u64
• Return a u64 from getnetworksolps, getnetworkhashps, and getmininginfo

Review

Anyone can review.

Reviewer Checklist

• Will the PR name make sense to users?
  • Does it need extra CHANGELOG info? (new features, breaking changes, large changes)
• Are the PR labels correct?
• Does the code do what the ticket and PR says?
  • Does it change concurrent code, unsafe code, or consensus rules?
• How do you know it works? Does it have tests?

[teor2345]

Thanks, this looks good.

as would be ok in this specific case, but since this module has consensus rules in it, we might want to avoid using it entirely here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5829 (dd272db) into main (77b85cf) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head dd272db differs from pull request most recent head 4ec9969. Consider uploading reports for the commit 4ec9969 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5829      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.82%   78.81%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         308      308              
  Lines       38742    38742              
==========================================
- Hits        30539    30536       -3     
- Misses       8203     8206       +3     

[teor2345]

Thanks!

Does this also need a Cargo.lock update?
(CI will check that for us.)

[teor2345]

Oh, sorry about the rustfmt in my suggestion.

[arya2]

Does this also need a Cargo.lock update? (CI will check that for us.)

Nope, it probably doesn't condition any dependencies on it.

Oh, sorry about the rustfmt in my suggestion.

No worries, thank you for the note and for the quick review.