Skip to content
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

lqt: wire action handlers for vote action #5077

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 8, 2025

Conversation

cronokirby
Copy link
Contributor

Previously we had a todo!() there, woops.

I've actually tested that this, combined with changes in another staged pr, allow one to submit votes.

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.

  • If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

    Consensus breaking relative to testnet too.

@cronokirby cronokirby added the consensus-breaking breaking change to execution of on-chain data label Feb 8, 2025
@erwanor erwanor changed the title bug: actually thread through state(less/full) checks for lqt vote action lqt: wire action handlers for vote action Feb 8, 2025
@erwanor erwanor merged commit e075cd8 into protocol/lqt_branch Feb 8, 2025
10 checks passed
@erwanor erwanor deleted the cronokirby/lqt-vote-todo-fix branch February 8, 2025 11:45
erwanor added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2025
Stacked pr on #5077, please review and merge that first.

This implements all of the bits and bobs necessary to make `pcli tx
lqt-vote` work. I ran a devnet and tested that you can submit votes. The
events for voting do get emitted, but there seems to be some issue with
either the code or the setup I had in terms of rewards actually being
distributed.

To test this pr, spinning up a devnet, or hitting a testnet post #5077
patch would work.

## Checklist before requesting a review

- [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test
these changes.

- [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there
are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

> Not consensus breaking actually, relative to the protocol branch, or
at least, it shouldn't be, since this only touches the client side of
things.

---------

Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <erwanor@penumbralabs.xyz>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
consensus-breaking breaking change to execution of on-chain data
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants