add governance support for superfluid #1191
Conversation
|
The superfluid governance itself is working, but an irrelevant test is failing. Trying to figure out. |
|
The test on keeper/stake_test.go is failing, which is not touched by any edit in this PR. Please let me know if someone knows why this happens! EDIT: nvm fixed it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made some suggestions to the panic strings. Do you think you can apply those suggestions to all the panic strings?
Also, this has me thinking...should we be panicing here? My gut tells me we should instead return an error and bubble it up to the caller.
/cc @ValarDragon
Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]>
…bs/osmosis into mconcat/superfluid-governance
|
Let's get CI/build passing and we can get this merged. |
Its for interface satisfaction. (Satisfying what the governance keeper expects from a staking keeper) Re: Queries, we should separately figure out either getting staking queries to show superfluid delegations, or superfluid queries to have conjoined queries. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1191 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 19.50% 19.57% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 231 236 +5
Lines 31527 31639 +112
==========================================
+ Hits 6150 6194 +44
- Misses 24251 24310 +59
- Partials 1126 1135 +9
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Co-authored-by: Dev Ojha <[email protected]>
…bs/osmosis into mconcat/superfluid-governance
|
Hi @mconcat . Just noticed that there haven't been any updates for a few days. What is the status of this? If this is still in progress, let's mark it as a draft, please |
|
I added test for the native coins - I think this is good to merge! |
|
ty for code review fixes matt! |
Closes: #XXX ## What is the purpose of the change @czarcas7ic and I ran into issues manually testing #1191 . We both reproduces this test case: #1543 (comment) Upon further investigation, it was found that staking keeper was never replaced with superfluid keeper in the gov module so that the new logic could not be used for calculating tally and overriding validator votes by SF stakers. We need to e2e test this case in a future PR: #1556 ## Testing and Verifying This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. ## Documentation and Release Note - Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? no - Is a relevant changelog entry added to the `Unreleased` section in `CHANGELOG.md`? no - How is the feature or change documented? not applicable
Closes: #XXX ## What is the purpose of the change @czarcas7ic and I ran into issues manually testing #1191 . We both reproduces this test case: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/discussions/1543#discussioncomment-2786650 Upon further investigation, it was found that staking keeper was never replaced with superfluid keeper in the gov module so that the new logic could not be used for calculating tally and overriding validator votes by SF stakers. We need to e2e test this case in a future PR: #1556 ## Testing and Verifying This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. ## Documentation and Release Note - Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? no - Is a relevant changelog entry added to the `Unreleased` section in `CHANGELOG.md`? no - How is the feature or change documented? not applicable (cherry picked from commit 8aaa84b)
Closes: #XXX ## What is the purpose of the change @czarcas7ic and I ran into issues manually testing #1191 . We both reproduces this test case: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/discussions/1543#discussioncomment-2786650 Upon further investigation, it was found that staking keeper was never replaced with superfluid keeper in the gov module so that the new logic could not be used for calculating tally and overriding validator votes by SF stakers. We need to e2e test this case in a future PR: #1556 ## Testing and Verifying This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. ## Documentation and Release Note - Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? no - Is a relevant changelog entry added to the `Unreleased` section in `CHANGELOG.md`? no - How is the feature or change documented? not applicable (cherry picked from commit 8aaa84b) Co-authored-by: Roman <[email protected]>
Closes: #1161
stil fixing test
Description
For contributor use:
docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)Unreleasedsection inCHANGELOG.mdFiles changedin the Github PR explorer