PoX 2 Unlock #3260
PoX 2 Unlock #3260
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #3260 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 83.92% 29.91% -54.01%
===========================================
Files 277 279 +2
Lines 227444 228223 +779
===========================================
- Hits 190880 68282 -122598
- Misses 36564 159941 +123377
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
| ;; calculate the index into the reward-set-indexes that `cycle` is at | ||
| (moved-cycle-index (- cycle (get first-reward-cycle moved-state))) | ||
| (moved-reward-list (get reward-set-indexes moved-state)) | ||
| ;; reward-set-indexes[moved-cycle-index] = set-index via slice, append, concat. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A pity that there isn't a set-element-at keyword in Clarity for sequences. Maybe this could be a separate function that makes this clear? Then we could at least point it out to developers if they want to do the equivalent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a private method in 266caf2.
It would be pretty easy to add a new Clarity built-in for this, though. I might try to include in the stacks-increase PR.
| ); | ||
| for _i in 0..slots_taken { | ||
| test_debug!("Add to PoX reward set: {:?}", &address); | ||
| reward_set.push(address.clone()); | ||
| } | ||
| // if stacker did not qualify for a slot *and* they have a stacker | ||
| // pointer set by the PoX contract, then add them to auto-unlock list |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The case where they wouldn't have a stacker pointer is if they were in a pool, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep -- if they used delegation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This pretty much LGTM. Thanks @kantai!
I just had one remaining design question about how to handle unlocks across reward cycle boundaries, which is still detailed in the comments. Let's get that addressed before merging. Thanks!
| self.inner_execute_contract(contract, tx_name, args, read_only, true) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn inner_execute_contract( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can add a note on this function directly that specifies that allow_private must always be false when doing user tx processing
|
|
||
| #[derive(Debug, PartialEq, Serialize, Deserialize)] | ||
| pub struct PoxStartCycleInfo { | ||
| pub missed_reward_slots: Vec<(PrincipalData, u128)>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe add comment about what PrincipalData and u128 are referring to
| // peak at the next address in the set, and see if we need to sum | ||
| while addresses.last().map(|x| &x.0) == Some(&address) { | ||
| let (_, additional_amt) = addresses | ||
| while addresses.last().map(|x| &x.reward_address) == Some(&address) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand the logic here, but it could be useful to leave a comment for posterity: The outer while loop pops the last element of the addresses vector, here we call last()... and since the addresses are sorted...
|
Fixed the CI tasks by switching to stable (thanks @lgalabru for pointing out that grcov works in stable now!), though it seems like the unit-tests tasks didn't successfully upload the coverage data. Will poke into that separately, but merging this PR now because the tests are passing, and its been approved. |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
This PR implements automatic unlocks for PoX 2.
Stackers who do not qualify for a slot in a reward set when the reward set is selected will be automatically unlocked after the reward set is selected. The auto unlock occurs 1 bitcoin block after the auto-unlock.
This requires a lot of complexity in
pox-2. This PR adds a test for the simple use case, but probably more testing is needed.