1043 minifront cannot claim unbonding tokens #1066
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Valentine1898
commented
May 7, 2024
| import { servicesCtx } from '../ctx/prax'; | ||
| import { Code, ConnectError } from '@connectrpc/connect'; | ||
|
|
||
| export const getValidatorInfo: Impl['getValidatorInfo'] = async (req, ctx) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added the getValidatorInfo implementation because it would not be optimal to iterate through the list of all validators for each unbonding balance
Comment on lines
+94
to
+103
| const mockBalancesResponse4 = new BalancesResponse({ | ||
| balanceView: { | ||
| valueView: { | ||
| case: 'unknownAssetId', | ||
| value: { | ||
| amount: { hi: 0n, lo: 3n }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added to make sure that having balances with unknownAssetId does not break anything
Comment on lines
61
to
65
| const withValidatorInfo = getBalanceView(new BalancesResponse(balancesResponse)).clone(); | ||
| if (withValidatorInfo.valueView.case !== 'knownAssetId') | ||
| throw new Error(`Unexpected ValueView case: ${withValidatorInfo.valueView.case}`); | ||
|
|
||
| withValidatorInfo.valueView.value.extendedMetadata = extendedMetadata; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same way as for delegation tokens
grod220
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
Comment on lines
10
to
14
| export const stakingImpl: Pick<Impl, 'getValidatorInfo' | 'validatorInfo' | 'validatorPenalty'> = { | ||
| getValidatorInfo, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would kinda be nice if this was an Omit<Impl, ...>, so that it was kinda in our face what we have not implemented yet
| value: validatorInfo.toBinary(), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const withValidatorInfo = getBalanceView(new BalancesResponse(balancesResponse)).clone(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to clone()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, it's unnecessary
Valentine1898
force-pushed
the
1043-minifront-cannot-claim-unbonding-tokens
branch
from
1e7591b to
6fda723
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Now extended_metadata fills in for unbonding tokens as well
close #1043