feat(devx): Add filter flag to Iota CLI

[salaheldinsoliman]

Description of change

This PR adds an emit flag to iota client call, whose functionality is to filter the outputs of the command.
The flag takes "effects" | "input" | "events" | "object_changes" | "balance_changes" as possible args.

This addresses the issue that call command result is often too long.

Note: the PR only addresses call. If the approach is agreed upon, it can be extended to ptb as well

Links to any relevant issues

fixes #2015

Type of change

Choose a type of change, and delete any options that are not relevant.

• Enhancement (a non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How the change has been tested

• Added tests in iota/tests/cli_tests

Change checklist

Tick the boxes that are relevant to your changes, and delete any items that are not.

• I have followed the contribution guidelines for this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have checked that new and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[kodemartin]

Hey @salaheldinsoliman!

I strongly believe that the functionality you want to expose should be handled exclusively on the client. I made several suggestion that essentially imply that all changes to dependencies (iota-indexer, iota-json-rpc, iota-json-rpc-types) should be reverted.

If you think that you need more options for the queries you are performing to expose this functionality, please create issues with the respective feature request so as to discuss them and plan them accordingly.

[Thoralf-M]

cargo +nightly fmt

[salaheldinsoliman]

@Thoralf-M @DaughterOfMars Would it make sense to merge this at this stage (before the release)?

[DaughterOfMars]

@Thoralf-M @DaughterOfMars Would it make sense to merge this at this stage (before the release)?

Not with failing tests, I would say

[Thoralf-M]

The failing tests don't seem to be related to this PR, I don't see a reason not to merge it before the release

[DaughterOfMars]

The failing tests don't seem to be related to this PR, I don't see a reason not to merge it before the release

Still a lot of comments I would prefer to be resolved first, but I'm not going to fight too hard

[Thoralf-M]

Still a lot of comments I would prefer to be resolved first, but I'm not going to fight too hard

Nothing against that, but to me it looks like all of them are outdated (one from you #2574 (comment)) the others from @kodemartin

Only this tiny suggestion is still open, but also not important #2574 (comment)