feat: Gigahdx #1445
Conversation
|
Crate versions that have not been updated:
New crates:
Crate versions that have been updated:
Crate versions that have been downgraded:
Runtime version has been increased. |
|
Quick benchmark at commit 26cf4f5 has been executed successfully. |
| /// tuple adapter alongside any other consumer (typically staking). | ||
| pub struct VotingHooksImpl<T>(PhantomData<T>); | ||
|
|
||
| impl<T: Config> VotingHooks<T::AccountId, ReferendumIndex, Balance> for VotingHooksImpl<T> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we added this, i think we should not forget to regenerate benchmark weights for pallet_conviction_voting.
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| let total = PendingRewards::<T>::take(&who); | ||
| ensure!(total > 0, Error::<T>::NoPendingRewards); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't we need to check here if the total is bigger than MinStake?
Because we do the following in the beginning of giga_stake
ensure!(amount >= T::MinStake::get(), Error::<T>::BelowMinStake);
But we dont have such validation in do_stake, so basically we would allow here doing staking with below min stake.
Edit: I also found the same min check in migrate
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| let _ = maybe_allocate_and_record::<T>(who, ref_index, &record); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here we silently swallow the error.
At least we could add a debug assert and log here so we ensure it never happens?
2 participants
No description provided.