Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Process successful .signers-voting results #4360
Process successful .signers-voting results #4360
Changes from 14 commits
6b87b77
b5e765c
fa27b97
b600a33
4053af9
8f42eba
8f7238b
74b40f5
00bc983
b2413c1
85b0ea2
d98b6a7
270bb36
59bb4aa
970399f
d8c8cfa
fe928d7
afb43de
28f6333
ccc20fc
2970970
60f0e07
407f3be
02bd070
00c5eba
1592b53
c4be109
eed2368
699a1da
30c4c52
d52b67e
43acc8c
69013f4
9cc1fd8
d808c0b
4f7fa91
8af5f9c
82df1f2
4e0180e
175d37e
e4c1e9c
a7c384c
ffef7ee
7c09d09
52c7a59
e220033
746ea8b
6015cab
a8514f2
2569934
018ea78
024cd71
8bbffeb
ea4ecf9
6288b29
192fdd5
2230776
ff95043
ddad05b
d8cde7f
ad1f014
862e347
1ca5d86
cd4a91d
955ac33
42a4efa
a92dbdb
f596c0b
c8654f9
51f0c91
0fdaf62
252a98c
e793b73
70eb622
3c0f858
911e5cd
712c77e
ac80a88
91a1fd9
055fad3
d2e6ad8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I think stacked_amt needs to be normalized no? Or is this already?
I.e. shoudl be some integer from 0 to 4000? Just surprised it is a u128 if it is normalized.
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.
I was not aware that this is supposed to be normalized. I thought it was just supposed to be the amount of STX?
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 "weight" is retrieved from the reward set entry which is a number of slots value and there are only 4000 of them. If signer A has 10 slots, they get key ids 1 through 10. The next signer in the list, Signer B, has 12 slots, they get key ids 11 through 22., etc. the max key id we can have is 4000. I do believe simply putting the stacked amt is incorrect.
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.
Ok, so I'm just going to revert this change and use the
slots
field, which seems to be the number of reward slots.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.
but I'm also going to rename it to
reward-slots
to avoid confusion with stacker DB slots, which is a term also used in this file.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.
Sure though weight is also fine to keep (its what is used inside reward slot entry inside the rust codebase. Would prob try to keep it consistent)
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.
Ok, then I'll rename the field in the struct to be
weight
to match also.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.
Done.
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.
I understood voting power is by stacked amount, not by slots that is less or equal than stacked amount.
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.
It seems there were some misunderstandings and back and forth there, but what we landed on is that this should be the number of reward slots.