refactor: refactoring Narg checks

[ameeetgaikwad]

Related Issues

#12790

Proposed Changes

Additional Info

Checklist

Before you mark the PR ready for review, please make sure that:

• Commits have a clear commit message.
• PR title conforms with contribution conventions
• Update CHANGELOG.md or signal that this change does not need it per contribution conventions
• New features have usage guidelines and / or documentation updates in
  • Lotus Documentation
  • Discussion Tutorials
• Tests exist for new functionality or change in behavior
• CI is green

[rvagg]

@ameeetgaikwad I think we need to be a bit more complete with this, have a look for instances of ctx.Args (specifically cctx.Args() usually but ctx.Args is a good shortening that should catch variations), and then walk back in the commands to see if there is a check there. Doing this in cli and doing a quick browse of the initial results I can see slash-consensus seems to need a check for 2 but doesn't have one. evm.go has its own custom error method (if argc := cctx.Args().Len(); argc != 1 {) which we probably should make consistent and use the IncorrectNumArgs function (I'm not sure there's a good reason to do it this way, seems like copypasta code to me). I've only looked through the first few files and haven't even touched miner or worker. It would be good here to be a bit more exhaustive than just fixing the obvious ones.

[ameeetgaikwad]

@ameeetgaikwad I think we need to be a bit more complete with this, have a look for instances of ctx.Args (specifically cctx.Args() usually but ctx.Args is a good shortening that should catch variations), and then walk back in the commands to see if there is a check there. Doing this in cli and doing a quick browse of the initial results I can see slash-consensus seems to need a check for 2 but doesn't have one. evm.go has its own custom error method (if argc := cctx.Args().Len(); argc != 1 {) which we probably should make consistent and use the IncorrectNumArgs function (I'm not sure there's a good reason to do it this way, seems like copypasta code to me). I've only looked through the first few files and haven't even touched miner or worker. It would be good here to be a bit more exhaustive than just fixing the obvious ones.

I'll go further deep into it!

[rvagg]

@ameeetgaikwad as per my latest comments, could you do a quick scan over your edits and double-check that you're not editing ones that can take >=X args rather than just ==X

[ameeetgaikwad]

@rvagg so I shouldn't be editing >=X or <=X args right? only the one which has ==X. Is that correct?

[rvagg]

check the block directly below this, this command has a bit of nuance, let's just leave it alone

[ameeetgaikwad]

should I replace the showHelp with IncorrectNumArgsWithHint the one we wrote above

[rvagg]

no, this one's got too much nuance, leave multisig.go alone, it's got fairly sophisticated handling already

[rvagg]

ditto, but there's 2 more blocks below here; so these commands already strictly check their number of arguments, they just have nuance to the way they report the misuse, let's leave it alone

[rvagg]

and again, there's 2 blocks below this that handle other cases up to 6 arguments, let's leave it alone

[ameeetgaikwad]

I have some doubts regarding some comments. I have mentioned them.

Also let me know if I have missed some scope of this refactor. I'll refactor those folders as well