feat: add vesting_base and vesting_investors NTRN-423 #22 #34
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
task: https://p2pvalidator.atlassian.net/browse/NTRN-423
This PR:
managers
,managed
,query_at_height
stuff) to thevesting_base
;vesting_base
library and adds usage ofvesting_base
+ configuration to thevesting-lp
andvesting-managed
;vesting-investors
contract which combinesquery_at_height
andmanaged
features;vesting-investors
contract which combinesvesting-lp
andvesting-managed
contracts' tests.Extensions explained:
Extensions usage is well described in the package's README.md file.
Invitation to
lovediscussion:I'd appreciate it if you guys could help me to come up with better names for extensions especially for the
managed
one. Currently it'sHistorical
,WithManagers
andManaged
and the latter two are very much alike in names but quite different in meaning. I named the extensionManaged
after the eponymousvesting-managed
contract, but I personally would like to rename both of them to something more meaningful. E.g. thevesting-managed
contract is made for LTI, so maybe we could name itvesting-lti
? Since we have avesting-investors
contract, that makes sense for me. TheManaged
extension could be named asRemovable
which also imo makes much more sense just by reading the name without getting deeper into the code. Renaming of the contract can be done in scope of another task.Related PRs:
Tests run: https://github.com/neutron-org/neutron-tests/actions/runs/4661122561