Custom complaints voting contract #529
Conversation
hashedone
force-pushed
the
custom-voting-contract
branch
from
1abea96
to
84b5d85
Compare
That's a problem, because that contract is already deployed in tgrade mainnet. Of course, we can always upgrade / migrate it, but it would be nice if we can avoid that step. Will review the code asap. Thanks for working on this. |
|
@abefernan just FYI that this issue is in review and almost complete so afterwards you should be able to continue with arbiter pool |
| @@ -242,21 +243,22 @@ fn execute_propose_arbiters( | |||
| weight: pass_weight as u64, | |||
| }, | |||
| max_voting_period: Duration::Time(config.waiting_period.seconds()), | |||
| complaint_id: case_id, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new contract could get this information from its own label, below. Not very robust, but if this is the only compatibility breaking change, worth considering IMO.
| [package] | ||
| name = "tgrade-dispute-multisig" | ||
| version = "0.14.0" | ||
| authors = ["Ethan Frey <[email protected]>"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Credit author proper?
Also, it would have been nice to first copy the cw3-fixed-multisig code, commit that, and then change / adapt it. That way the commit log / diffs could be checked as a reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bonus point: It would have been nice to use the voting-contract package, and avoid having yet another similar but still slightly different copy of the voting logic around.
Update: See confio/poe-contracts#194. One more for the migration I guess.
| @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ | |||
| # CW3 Fixed Multisig | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either remove or update this.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| //#[cw_serde] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove commented code.
It would have been nice that your changes were over this original code. And that the original version were part of the commit history for this contract.
| pub status: Status, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl State { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that you renamed Proposal to State and are now passing Config as a parameter.
Other than that, I assume all this is standard voting state handling logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Related: confio/poe-contracts#194.
|
As @maurolacy accepts to change stuff in future, merging this (all CI issues fixed) |
Closes #44
Quick summary:
The new contract is based on fixed-multisig contract from cw-plus, but it is heavily modified. Instead of containing its own proposals, it is always created to vote on a single "phantom" proposal, always the complaint from
ap-votingcontract. Additionally executing the contract requires adding thesummaryandipfs_linkso it is possible to render decisions by the parentap-voitingas the execution result.The
ap-votingcontract had to be aligned to use the new contract (slight changes in the instantiation of the voting contract, also a bit of cleanup).Lastly - one new MT is created to test the full complaint flow - from creating it up to rendering decisions by passed voting.