Introduce Redeems Reserve#1746
Draft
rkolpakov wants to merge 2 commits intofeat/staking-router-3.0from
Draft
Conversation
|
Hardhat Unit Tests Coverage SummaryDetailsDiff against masterResults for commit: 8b27fc4 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
rkolpakov
force-pushed
the
feat/redeems-reserve-over-sr-3.0
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b13aec7 to
972e610
Compare
rkolpakov
force-pushed
the
feat/redeems-reserve-over-sr-3.0
branch
from
972e610 to
7f748f7
Compare
Psirex
reviewed
Apr 3, 2026
| reserveManager: HardhatEthersSigner, | ||
| opts: { | ||
| deposit: bigint; | ||
| ratioBP: bigint; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider naming it redeemsReserveTarget, similar to depositsReserveTarget
| /** Validates reserve-related state derived from total pooled ether */ | ||
| export function assertReserveState(state: ProtocolState, ratioBP: bigint) { | ||
| expect(state.reserveTarget).to.equal(expectedReserveTarget(state.internalEther, ratioBP)); | ||
| expect(state.reserve).to.equal(state.reserveTarget); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like it works only when the reserve wasn't used and buffer has enough eth
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, in cases where reserve drained/not replenished it uses explicit check
| await assertReserveAllocationInvariant(lido); | ||
| assertReserveState(protocol0, DEFAULT_RATIO_BP); | ||
|
|
||
| // --- Request withdrawals exceeding unreserved buffer --- |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding an assert which checks that withdrawable ether actually less than the total withdrawals amount
| const sharedAllocationBefore = beforeReport.withdrawalsReserve + getUnreserved(beforeReport); | ||
|
|
||
| // --- Path A: report with growthShare = 0 --- | ||
| await doReport(ctx, { skipWithdrawals: true, excludeVaultsBalances: true }); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it would make sense to simulate rewards in this test, to verify that withdrawalsReserve grows while the redeem reserve stays unchanged after the report.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Advances chain time past the oracle requestTimestampMargin */ | ||
| export async function advanceToReportableTime(ctx: ProtocolContext) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick: the naming is a bit misleading. It suggests that this helper advances time to the point where the oracle can report, while it actually advances time to the point where all withdrawal requests satisfy the creation-time sanity check.
|
|
||
| await redeemExact(lido, holder, fix, REDEEM_AMOUNT); | ||
|
|
||
| await doReport(ctx, { clDiff: CL_LOSS }); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding an assertion to verify that the share rate decreased, confirming that the report was indeed negative
| // --- Internalize bad debt, process report --- | ||
| const badDebtShares = | ||
| (await dashboard.liabilityShares()) - (await lido.getSharesByPooledEth(await dashboard.totalValue())); | ||
| const internalizedBadDebtShares = await vaultHub |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding check, internalizedBadDebtShares is not zero
| await doReport(ctx, { excludeVaultsBalances: false, reportElVault: true }); | ||
|
|
||
| const state2: ProtocolState = await captureState(lido); | ||
| const deferredRewards = await ethers.provider.getBalance(elVaultAddr); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needed a check, that deferred rewards are not zero
| // --- Path A: report without redeem (via snapshot) --- | ||
| const simSnapshot = await Snapshot.take(); | ||
|
|
||
| await doReport(ctx, { excludeVaultsBalances: false, reportElVault: true }); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems the current implementation of accounting.report() always calls simulateReport() internally. That may violate the requirement that redeem happens after refSlot. Worth double-checking that, in this test, simulatedShareRate is actually calculated from the pre-redeem state.
| const overrideBatches = [...batchesState.batches].filter((x) => x > 0n); | ||
|
|
||
| // --- Process report with override batches --- | ||
| await report(ctx, { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding an assertion for the redeem reserve: before the report, it should match the corresponding share of the protocol, and after the report, it should be zero.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.