JSON RPC API docs updates

[buffalojoec]

Problem

We've noticed a few things that are inaccurate in the JSON RPC docs while building out the new Web3 JS library.

Some methods have parameters marked as optional that are actually required, and other similar minor errors.

Summary of Changes

• getBlocksWithLimit: Make limit a required parameter
• getHighestSnapshotSlot: Response field incremental should be of type <u64|null> not <u64|undefined>
• getSignatureStatuses: Make signatures a required parameter
• getVersion:
  • Response code block should include feature-set
  • Added types of both response fields (ie. solana-core: string & feature-set: number)

Fixes #32696

---

I'm curious why the response for RpcVersionInfo is set to Kebab case, rather than Camel case. Surely there's a good reason for this, but it throws off client library management since the rest of the methods appear to adhere to Camel case. Just curious why this is done (Source)

---

Note: This will remain a draft until we've finished implementing all remaining RPC HTTP methods (see solana-labs/solana-web3.js#1449) and Web Socket methods (see solana-labs/solana-web3.js#1505)

[steviez]

Note: This will remain a draft until we've finished implementing all remaining RPC HTTP methods

@buffalojoec - Based on the status of the linked PR's, I don't think you have finished what you had mentioned wanting to finish. That being said, I don't necessarily think you have to collect all of the and wait to push until you have completely gone through all methods. I don't imagine this PR would grow that big, but for example, if we started to hit 100's of lines changed, breaking up into smaller PR's would preferred if possible.

Either is fine with me - you can sit on this until you've finished or you can push fixes in incrementally as you find them. Either way, when you'd like me to take a look, please move the PR out of Draft state and @-mention me in a comment to be sure I get a notification (I don't think moving from draft to ready-for-review sends a notification)

[buffalojoec]

Note: This will remain a draft until we've finished implementing all remaining RPC HTTP methods

@buffalojoec - Based on the status of the linked PR's, I don't think you have finished what you had mentioned wanting to finish. That being said, I don't necessarily think you have to collect all of the and wait to push until you have completely gone through all methods. I don't imagine this PR would grow that big, but for example, if we started to hit 100's of lines changed, breaking up into smaller PR's would preferred if possible.

Either is fine with me - you can sit on this until you've finished or you can push fixes in incrementally as you find them. Either way, when you'd like me to take a look, please move the PR out of Draft state and @-mention me in a comment to be sure I get a notification (I don't think moving from draft to ready-for-review sends a notification)

Sounds good to me. We actually are on the last HTTP methods and - as you said - we can always pen a new PR with any additional findings. Why don't we go ahead and mark this ready and we can explore opening another new one if we spot anything else?

@steviez

[steviez]

LGTM

[buffalojoec]

LGTM

I can't merge! 😥