Support for 0.33

[tomtau]

Primarily Block#Header changed

[liamsi]

ref #88 #181 #182

[Shivani912]

#181 (comment)

[greg-szabo]

In short, Shivani is working on this on branch v0.33. We'll merge that branch to master when we're ready with upgrading to 0.33

[greg-szabo]

Note: we're planning to use this issue to gather all the outstanding issues that are related to upgrading to v0.33. The issues are usually related to Tendermint Go compatibility over JSONRPC.

Today, I've started going through all RPC struct types and noticed that we sometimes failed to follow the Tendermint-Go implementation's omitempty tags. I'm planning to fix that by using the serde annotation #[serde(default) (thanks @liamsi for mentioning that in another issue), instead of the currently implemented Option<> way.
This creates cleaner looking code and no unwrap() calls.

I'll add other issues here so we track their progress here.

[greg-szabo]

Related to 0.33 upgrade:

• Primarily Block#Header changed (mentioned in this issue by @tomtau )
• rpc: incompatibilities #88 - rpc incompatibilities - JSON ID incompatibility remains
• RPC: AbciInfo.last_block_app_hash should be bytes instead of Hash #192 - AbciInfo compatibility
• Run a tendermint node in CI to test the RPC & light client #120 - Run a tendermint node in CI (that runs integration tests with success)
• RPC client incompatibility with Tendermint 0.32 /block_results endpoint #4 - RPC client incompatibility with Tendermin 0.32 (most probably this is obsolete already, but it will be with 0.33)

PRs:

• Fix AbciQuery to support error response. #71 Fix AbciQuery response
• Fix serializer and deserializer not symmetric #98 Fix ser/de not symmetric

Branch:
v0.33 branch

[greg-szabo]

All issues were resolved in the v0.33 branch. I just need to figure out what to do with the two PRs from @yihuang .

It seems that I've implemented PR #71 in parallel with some differences. I couldn't actually get a query with "code": 1 but all other fields are tested in the integration tests, so if this branch is accepted, #71 can be closed without merge.

As for PR #98, I didn't touch that yet. From a high level, it looks good and I think it's mergeable even with the changes in this branch. I'll check it out.

[greg-szabo]

All relevant changes are on master. Other issues were opened for refining and improving things.