feat: add claim extension

[LexLuthr]

Depends on filecoin-project/lotus#11711

• When we say NOW to TermMax and if TermMax was already 5 years then nothing changes. So does the deal expired after the original TermStart+TermMax or does it stay beyond that and expired at NOW+TermMax? Need clarification from Actor team.

[beck-8]

I think it needs to be clarified here, the period of the sector or some people will misunderstand?
I think it's important to clarify here that sectors are limited to only a 5-year term.so not 9 years 10x power

[beck-8]

The commands for 1 and 2 are exactly the same? Is there a problem here?

I think in the second case, you need to add something like --really-do-it, because some people may not want to use datacap, but inadvertently use it.

[LexLuthr]

@beck-8 The command structure does not change because you are using a different client address. The description is different and so is the --client value.
As for the --really-do-it we already have checks in code to confirm the use of Datacap.

[LexLuthr]

I think it needs to be clarified here, the period of the sector or some people will misunderstand? I think it's important to clarify here that sectors are limited to only a 5-year term.so not 9 years 10x power

@beck-8 Can you please recheck that line now and confirm it is not confusing anymore.

[beck-8]

I think it needs to be clarified here, the period of the sector or some people will misunderstand? I think it's important to clarify here that sectors are limited to only a 5-year term.so not 9 years 10x power

@beck-8 Can you please recheck that line now and confirm it is not confusing anymore.

i think no problem

[beck-8]

@beck-8 The command structure does not change because you are using a different client address. The description is different and so is the --client value.
As for the --really-do-it we already have checks in code to confirm the use of Datacap.

Let me re-describe the problem just now: I'll illustrate it with examples.

Client1-sp1-claim1

Client2-sp1-claim2

Now I want to use client2 to renew claim2 for sp1 (no datacap consumption), assuming that sp1 only has claim1 claim2, so I will use the -all parameter.

Will this cause client2 to renew the claim1 of SP1 together (consuming datacap)

I didn't look at your PR by myself in this place. I just simply saw the docs, so I have this question.

[LexLuthr]

@beck-8 The command structure does not change because you are using a different client address. The description is different and so is the --client value.
As for the --really-do-it we already have checks in code to confirm the use of Datacap.

Let me re-describe the problem just now: I'll illustrate it with examples.

Client1-sp1-claim1

Client2-sp1-claim2

Now I want to use client2 to renew claim2 for sp1 (no datacap consumption), assuming that sp1 only has claim1 claim2, so I will use the -all parameter.

Will this cause client2 to renew the claim1 of SP1 together (consuming datacap)

The command give you a warning that it required Datacap to extend all claims. The Datacap will be the for claim1 only in this case. Then it will ask you to proceed or not. If you Choose NO, it will simply extend claim2 only.

I didn't look at your PR by myself in this place. I just simply saw the docs, so I have this question.

[beck-8]

I understand, thank you very much

[rjan90]

lgtm. Just some smaller nits

[TippyFlitsUK]

Looking good!! Couple of minor suggestions.