Skip to content

funding: implement execute ActionLiquidityTournamentVote#5033

Merged
cronokirby merged 4 commits intoprotocol/lqt_branchfrom
cronokirby/5032-tally
Jan 31, 2025
Merged

funding: implement execute ActionLiquidityTournamentVote#5033
cronokirby merged 4 commits intoprotocol/lqt_branchfrom
cronokirby/5032-tally

Conversation

@cronokirby
Copy link
Contributor

@cronokirby cronokirby commented Jan 30, 2025

Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that logic.

Testing deferred.

@cronokirby cronokirby force-pushed the cronokirby/5032-tally branch from 472487a to f57279b Compare January 30, 2025 21:13
@cronokirby cronokirby force-pushed the cronokirby/5032-tally branch from f57279b to a97a3f0 Compare January 30, 2025 22:18
@cronokirby cronokirby marked this pull request as ready for review January 30, 2025 22:18
@cronokirby cronokirby added the consensus-breaking breaking change to execution of on-chain data label Jan 30, 2025
@cronokirby cronokirby force-pushed the cronokirby/5032-tally branch from a97a3f0 to 67a22f7 Compare January 30, 2025 22:28
@cronokirby cronokirby changed the title WIP: #5032 Implement check and execute for LQT votes Jan 31, 2025
self.body.nullifier,
current_epoch.index
);
state.put_lqt_spent_nullifier(current_epoch.index, nullifier, TransactionId([0u8; 32]));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I think we can revisit in a follow-up PR.

bytes_asset.copy_from_slice(&asset.to_bytes());
bytes_power.copy_from_slice(&((!power).to_be_bytes()));
bytes_voter.copy_from_slice(&voter.to_vec());

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

/// This will return None if the denom is not a base denom.
pub fn incentivized_id(&self) -> Option<asset::Id> {
REGISTRY
.parse_denom(&self.incentivized.denom)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I presume this still work for unknown denoms right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

https://rustdoc.penumbra.zone/main/src/penumbra_sdk_asset/asset/registry.rs.html#70

Yeah, the case in which it returns None is only when it's a known non-base denom.

Copy link
Contributor

@erwanor erwanor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK writing a zero-ed TxId in the NF set is fine, we can follow up with another PR

@cronokirby cronokirby merged commit f8dcd60 into protocol/lqt_branch Jan 31, 2025
13 checks passed
@cronokirby cronokirby deleted the cronokirby/5032-tally branch January 31, 2025 18:33
@erwanor erwanor mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2025
33 tasks
@erwanor erwanor changed the title Implement check and execute for LQT votes funding: implement execute ActionLiquidityTournamentVote Jan 31, 2025
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 14, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
cronokirby added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 14, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 21, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 12, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2025
Closes #5032.

The check and execute logic for the action handler is still missing the
nullifier check, but there's an obvious insertion point for adding that
logic.

Testing deferred.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

consensus-breaking breaking change to execution of on-chain data

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants