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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
[Uptime Incentives]: Use gauge duration as uptime with appropriate validation and fallback #7417
[Uptime Incentives]: Use gauge duration as uptime with appropriate validation and fallback #7417
Changes from 4 commits
fc05777
a855eab
48fb452
16dacb0
a914960
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 we should pass authorized uptimes as a func input param instead of retrieving it for every single gauge, this could be expensive.
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.
Hmm I agree that this might be expensive, but unfortunately
distributeInternal
is used for all gauges, not just CL gauges, so authorized uptimes as a func input would be super odd. Happy to continue discussion offlineThere 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 only in the noLock gauge (not superfluid) and can be altered state compatibly so i'm fine w/ filing this into a GH issue and doing later!
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.
Note: diff seems to be rendering poorly – these are moved to the end of the block
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.
Not a huge fan of this test format due to poor readability for more complex test cases, but opted to conform to it since refactoring would be higher overhead to discuss/implement/review
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.
nit: suggest hardcoding the expected uptime in the test case struct as dynamically selecting the expected value in the test case logic is prone to test configuration bugs, especially, as the test case grows