fix(data-model)!: more consistent query parameters

[0x009922]

Context

There are some minor inconsistencies within query parameters (pagination, fetch size, sorting):

• Impossible to construct these structures when using iroha_data_model as a library
• Pagination limit and fetch size was u32, while pagination offset is u64. It doesn't make sense, since they are all technically limited to the maximum vec size in Iroha, which is usize, which is commonly represented as u64 in the data model.
• Pagination offset is Option<NonZero<u64>>, where None value doesn't give any additional meaning and is just treated as zero, which is also a default value for u64.

Solution

• Add missing constructors
• Use u64/NonZero<u64> everywhere
• Make pagination offset just u64 instead of Option<NonZero<u64>>
• Re-arrange pagination fields - first is offset, second is limit (affects ordering in the constructor)

---

Review notes (optional)

• For complex PRs, try to provide some information on how to approach the review more effectively.
• For example, is there a natural order in which the affected files should be reviewed?

Checklist

• [x] I've read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• [ ] (optional) I've written unit tests for the code changes.
• [ ] All review comments have been resolved.

[mversic]

since they are all technically limited to the maximum vec size in Iroha, which is usize, which is commonly represented as u64 in the data model.

that is the hard upper limit, we can choose to make it tighter. Using a u64 for fetch size is unnecessary, especially when you consider that MAX_FETCH_SIZE = 10000

[0x009922]

that is the hard upper limit, we can choose to make it tighter.

I am fine either way, just want to make it consistent.

Using a u64 for fetch size is unnecessary, especially when you consider that MAX_FETCH_SIZE = 10000

I see, maybe then make it even smaller, like u16?

[github-actions[bot]]

@BAStos525

[0x009922]

@mversic as was discussed, let's keep u64.

[0x009922]

Tests seem to work on my machine.