-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 145
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add proposer field to Proposal #140
Conversation
Thanks for the contribution! Would you mind adding a test for this creating a new proposal and verifying that the field is set? |
Will do, should I just add this under test_propose_works in tests.rs? |
Wherever is you think makes the most sense. Feel free to add a new test as well. Can never have too many :) |
Will do. Any guidance on how to achieve this? As the CW3 Proposal Response message does not feature a proposer field. And the execute response already has an attribute for sender which is effectively the same as the proposer. |
I've got no problem with making our own proposal response type that's the same as the cw3 version modulo the When parsing, JSON doesn't even care if you have extra fields most of the time so it shouldn't be an issue in most cases to have the extra field for folks who expect us to implement cw3. Others welcome to chime in and disagree. |
Decided to go with this, implemented the same attrs as the base CW3 module + proposer. Open to any feedback / disagreements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great. Thanks so much for pushing this through! Comments are lovely, test is lovely, and schema is regenerated.
UI update for this: DA0-DA0/dao-dao-ui#255 |
🎉 Congrats @Callum-A on your first DAO DAO contribution! |
Addresses #136
Adds proposer field to the Proposal which is populated by the sender of the propose message. Noticed the CW3 ProposalResponse struct does not have a proposer field. Does this need to be addressed separately?