stake-contract: allow stake topup and partial unstake #3027
Conversation
herr-seppia
force-pushed
the
feature-com
branch
5 times, most recently
from
31301d8
to
6fb2799
Compare
herr-seppia
force-pushed
the
feature-com
branch
from
6fb2799
to
97a7a72
Compare
herr-seppia
force-pushed
the
remove-stake-nonce
branch
from
a73c5f2
to
0528f8b
Compare
herr-seppia
changed the title
| /// Return None if the entry was not found or `amount` is higher than | ||
| /// current stake |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it smart to have the same return value for a non-existing stake and overflowing subtraction? I would think returning a Result might make sense here, but I don't have a good overview on how and where this function will be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not smart I agree
However, I thought that introducing an error for distinguish the cases was a bit overkilling for our need.
Indeed both cases (entry not found or amount higher), identify a bug in our code and the remediation is to resync the provisioners from scratch asking them to the stake contract with
if let Err(e) = selective_update {
warn!("Resync provisioners due to {e:?}");
let state_hash = blk.header().state_hash;
let new_prov = vm.get_provisioners(state_hash)?;
provisioners_list.update_and_swap(new_prov)
}Having the "bug" logger somewhere is enough IMO
|
|
||
| /// Add an amount to the stake | ||
| pub fn add(&mut self, add: u64) { | ||
| self.value += add |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
overflow check? Or do we assume that no-one can ever own that much
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the value is the lux representation of the stake, someone should own more than 18B DUSK in order to overflow (way more than our max supply)
No description provided.