Add additional details to getLatestLedger response

[aditya1702]

What

Closes #79

• Add additional information about a ledger to the GetLatestLedger response.
• Unittests

Why

The current info lacks basic ledger information. This change brings it in sync with the information returned by GetLedgers endpoint - #303 (comment)

Known limitations

NA

[2opremio]

I am not sure why this is needed. You can always obtain the latest ledger and query getLedger with the obtained sequence.

I understand it saves one API call (which can be an advantage), but it also complicates the API. Is there a usecase justiying this?

If we really want to do this, can we at least try to factor out the obtention of LedgerInfo ? (maybe it ends up complicating the code further, but we should at least consider it)

[leighmcculloch]

I am not sure why this is needed. You can always obtain the latest ledger and query getLedger with the obtained sequence.

The getLatestLedger and getLedger both impl they'll return a "ledger", and yet both return different sets of data. The better developer experience would be to return the same resource. I understand this is an RPC API and not a RESTful API oriented around resources, but I think the concepts are still useful.

[leighmcculloch]

Is there a usecase justiying this?

There are no critical use cases, as you say you can make two calls, it's just inconvenient, or makes for an inconsistent developer experience.

There are potential issues if operators horizontally scale RPC and return inconsistent results, such as latest refers to a ledger seq that can't be retrieved, but that's just theoretical, I'm not aware of this occurring.

[aditya1702]

Based on the discussion we had and @leighmcculloch 's comments, it looks like we dont actually have a strong reason for doing this change right now. Closing this for now but we can always revisit in the future.

[leighmcculloch]

The better developer experience would be to return the same resource.

I think this ☝🏻 is a strong reason.

Based on the discussion we had

Could you link to the discussion?