ContinuousLocking4Reputation scheme #657
Conversation
| event Release(bytes32 indexed _lockingId, address indexed _beneficiary, uint256 _amount); | ||
| event LockToken(address indexed _locker, bytes32 indexed _lockingId, uint256 _amount, uint256 _period); | ||
|
|
||
| struct Locking { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think Batch is a better wording here.
| uint256 public startTime; | ||
| uint256 public numberOfLockingPeriods; | ||
| uint256 public redeemEnableTime; | ||
| uint256 public maxLockingPeriods; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having two variables with different meaning with such close names maxLockingPeriods and MAX_LOCKING_PERIODS is very confusing.
I propose, maxLockingBatches and MAX_LOCKING_BATCHES_HARDCAP.
Another way is to make MAX_LOCKING_BATCHES_HARDCAP private, as it is not very interesting to the user.
| */ | ||
| uint256 constant private REAL_ONE = uint256(1) << REAL_FBITS; | ||
|
|
||
| uint256 constant public MAX_PERIODS = 100; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would make this a hardcap, and allow the user to initiate the actual value, as it is close to max locking.
Would also make this one private.
| uint256 _periodsUnit, | ||
| uint256 _redeemEnableTime, | ||
| uint256 _maxLockingPeriods, | ||
| uint256 _repRewardConstA, |
| mapping(address=>uint256) scores; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| struct Locker { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not representing a locker but rather a specific locking.
| uint256 j = _period; | ||
| //fill in the next lockings scores. | ||
| //todo : check limitation of _period and require that on the init function. | ||
| for (int256 i = int256(lockingPeriodToLockIn + _period - 1); i >= int256(lockingPeriodToLockIn); i--) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it simpler to write the loop forward?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @orenyodfat,
I think it is still not good enough. The names are not really coherent.
We can also ask someone like @jellegerbrandy, who is good naming to take a look.
| // A mapping from lockers addresses their lock balances. | ||
| mapping(address => mapping(bytes32=>Locker)) public lockers; | ||
| mapping(address => mapping(bytes32=>Lock)) public lockers; | ||
| // A mapping from locking index to locking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A mapping from batch index to batch.
| uint256 public redeemEnableTime; | ||
| uint256 public maxLockingPeriods; | ||
| uint256 public maxLockingBatches; | ||
| uint256 public periodsUnit; |
| Lock storage locker = lockers[_beneficiary][_lockingId]; | ||
| uint256 periodToRedeemFrom = (locker.lockingTime - startTime) / periodsUnit; | ||
| // solhint-disable-next-line not-rely-on-time | ||
| uint256 currentLockingPeriod = (now - startTime) / periodsUnit; |
|
thanks @leviadam |
2 participants
bootstrap scheme for nectar dao.