Judgement proxy migration #4
Conversation
| } else { | ||
| // Nothing should change | ||
| expected_proxies.insert(who.clone(), (proxies, old_deposit)); | ||
| expected_reserved_amounts.insert(who, current_reserved); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this correct? The above if only triggers if both were modified. Maybe there needs to be an else if to trigger for either of them changed as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's deliberate, we only make changes if both were modified.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lets suppose one proxy was removed, so first the user had 5 and now they have 4. But at the same time the deposit function was increased from 20 to 25. Then the num proxies decreased but the deposit stays the same, or?
But its a very edge case 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's fine, in that case we just remove the invalid proxy and leave the deposit at 20.
Now that you mention it though my comment is misleading, since the proxies could still have changed. I'll adjust it.
Co-authored-by: Oliver Tale-Yazdi <oliver.tale-yazdi@parity.io>
|
Still needs a changelog entry. |
joepetrowski
merged commit 40ea467
into
joepetrowski:remove-kusama-relay-identity
Will just be included in the main PR |
See polkadot-fellows#315 (comment)