-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
Conversation
The balances module also has instantiation. Why was there no issue there? |
I guess the code generated by the macro is different when it's actually instantiated. But yeah, good point, I'll check deeper. \cc @thiolliere |
I guess it can related to the fact that node-runtime only use balance with default instance whereas collective is used with non default instance. |
@thiolliere Do you see a cleaner way to solve this problem? Or do you agree this is a good hack for now? |
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.
Make sure you populate the Proposals vec with when doing these benchmarks.
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.
lgtm
* Init * Fix execute. * Duplicate macro for instances temporarilly * Add propose. * Add vote, close. * Propose from own module * Add old members to set_members. * Add previous proposals to propose. * Compress a bit the macro. Co-authored-by: Shawn Tabrizi <shawntabrizi@gmail.com>
One of the problems I found is that the module is instantiated. So it seems I should call it from
Council
like this:but
run_benchmark
from the benchmarking macro is not implemented forModule<T, I>
, only forModule<T>
.