Governance: Voters put money where mouth is #1183
Conversation
lock funds up until enactment.
|
|
||
| Self::voters_for(index).into_iter() | ||
| .filter(|a| (Self::vote_of((index, a.clone())).unwrap_or(false)/*defensive only: all items come from `voters`; for an item to be in `voters` there must be a vote registered; qed*/ == approved)) | ||
| .for_each(|a| <Bondage<T>>::mutate(a, |b| if *b < now + delay { *b = now + delay })); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should it be *b <= now so it'll also apply the delay to accounts who's funds became liquid at the current block (now) as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's mathematically equivalent.
| @@ -156,7 +180,12 @@ decl_storage! { | |||
| /// The next referendum index that should be tallied. | |||
| pub NextTally get(next_tally) build(|_| 0 as ReferendumIndex): ReferendumIndex; | |||
| /// Information concerning any given referendum. | |||
| pub ReferendumInfoOf get(referendum_info): map ReferendumIndex => Option<(T::BlockNumber, T::Proposal, VoteThreshold)>; | |||
| pub ReferendumInfoOf get(referendum_info): map ReferendumIndex => Option<(ReferendumInfo<T::BlockNumber, T::Proposal>)>; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we want the return value also include the vote threshold and the delay block number? i.e. Option<(ReferendumInfo<T::BlockNumber, T::Proposal, VoteThreshold, T::BlockNumber>)>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ReferendumInfo does includes both already.
| type SessionKey: Parameter + Default + MaybeSerializeDebugButNotDeserialize; | ||
|
|
||
| /// The session key type used by authorities. | ||
| #[cfg(feature = "std")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are the changes in this file related to to this PR? they appear to be causing tests to fail
|
i've created PR #1186 into this branch since some existing tests now require the |
| }; | ||
| // If all council members voted yes, then it's strongly unconversial; we require a negative | ||
| // super-majority at referendum in order to defeat it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(nitpick) typo uncontroversial
| assert_ok!(Democracy::internal_start_referendum(proposal.clone(), VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove), 0); | ||
| assert_eq!(Democracy::active_referendums(), vec![(0, 4, proposal, VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove)]); | ||
| assert_ok!(Democracy::internal_start_referendum(proposal.clone(), VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove, 0), 0); | ||
| assert_eq!(Democracy::active_referendums(), vec![(0, 4, proposal, VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove, 0)]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would there be any benefit to using Zero::zero() for each of these instead of 0 (as was done in e1853be)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not within tests, where the type is concrete. Zero::zero() is needed when the type is abstract.
| @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ mod tests { | |||
| fn simple_passing_should_work() { | |||
| with_externalities(&mut new_test_ext(), || { | |||
| System::set_block_number(1); | |||
| let r = Democracy::inject_referendum(1, set_balance_proposal(2), VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove).unwrap(); | |||
| let r = Democracy::inject_referendum(1, set_balance_proposal(2), VoteThreshold::SuperMajorityApprove, 0).unwrap(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as per previous comment, any benefit in using Zero::zero() instead of 0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not within tests, where the type is concrete.
srml/democracy/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| Ok(()) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: These should be wired-in into the runtime. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please create an issue and link it in the comment.
* Referendums only gett enacted after a delay; successful voters must lock funds up until enactment. * Build fixes. * Configurable council enact delay, fix test builds. * Fix spelling * Remove TODO
Closes #94