Fabo/1199 improve jank at start #1216
Conversation
…/voyager into fabo/1138-show-about-menu
…rrect-voting-power
…cosmos/voyager into fabo/1199-improve-jank-at-start
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1216 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 95.89% 95.91% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 81 82 +1
Lines 1608 1615 +7
Branches 75 76 +1
===========================================
+ Hits 1542 1549 +7
Misses 60 60
Partials 6 6
|
…cosmos/voyager into fabo/1199-improve-jank-at-start
faboweb
changed the title
| @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ export default ({ node }) => { | |||
| transactions.map(async t => { | |||
| let blockMetaInfo = await dispatch("queryBlockInfo", t.height) | |||
| t.time = blockMetaInfo && blockMetaInfo.header.time | |||
| return transactions | |||
| return t | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would vote for transactions over t - i'm sure @NodeGuy feels the same way
There was a problem hiding this comment.
transactions was a bug, since the variable didn't exist in the scope of the function...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding: I would like to avoid refactoring existing untouched code in PRs so we do not bloat the PRs. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah i see - ok makes sense. thank you for clarifying.
| @@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ tm-page.page-bond(title="Staking") | |||
| :class="bondGroupClass(delta(d.atoms, d.oldAtoms))") | |||
| .bond-group__fields | |||
| .bond-bar | |||
| label.bond-bar__label(v-if="!d.delegate.revoked") {{ d.delegate.moniker }} | |||
| label.bond-bar__label.revoked(v-if="d.delegate.revoked") {{ d.delegate.moniker }} | |||
| label.bond-bar__label(v-if="!d.delegate.revoked") {{ d.delegate.description.moniker }} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fixed monikers not showing
…cosmos/voyager into fabo/1199-improve-jank-at-start
| @@ -44,7 +44,11 @@ export default function({ node }) { | |||
| rootState.wallet.zoneIds.unshift(header.chain_id) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| await dispatch("maybeUpdateValidators", header) | |||
| // updating the header is done even while the user is not logged in | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we do this / is this still true?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, we bind to the "new header" events before signing in. the event would then trigger an update of the validatorset which is skipped here. This will also change when we react to the validatorset updated event.
| }, | ||
| candidates[2] // this is the revoked one | ||
| ) | ||
| let chileanValidator = Object.assign( |
| moniker: "someOtherValidator" | ||
| description: { | ||
| description: "descriptionY", | ||
| country: "Canada", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks great to me.
not sure i understand why / how separating keybase out from the validator getter is a good thing but i believe you.
also not sure i understand why the atomDiff needs to be calculated the way it does.
approved nonetheless.
side note: i would LOVE if we refactored just the language because delegates and delegators feels very old and unfamiliar. what is committedDelegates?
Love the idea. Can you create an issue for that?
keybase is a completely different ressource then where we get our validators from. so I thought we should split these concerns.
how would you do it? maybe my approach was too much |
|
done #1283 |
Closes #1199, #1211, #1080
Also fixes a bug on the PageBond where the atoms would not have been updated after staking (optimistic update).
❤️ Thank you!