lqt: make transaction planner request take only a single denom #5091
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
TalDerei
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for noticing this, the use of repeated was an artifact of some misunderstanding, and the wasm planner already accounts for this by basically iterating over each delegation note and using the same incentivized asset that was passed in the request for each action it constructs.
erwanor
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2025
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
## Describe your changes Looking at the ongoing integration work in: penumbra-zone/web#2041, the transaction planner request for lqt votes can only make use of a single incentivized denom anyways, which is what we want to support in the final ux, so having a repeated field here that subsequently gets truncated to the first provided value is superfluous. This change makes the field plain instead. This can be tested inside of that PR. ## Issue ticket number and link ## 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: > Affects clients only.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
Looking at the ongoing integration work in: penumbra-zone/web#2041, the transaction planner request for lqt votes can only make use of a single incentivized denom anyways, which is what we want to support in the final ux, so having a repeated field here that subsequently gets truncated to the first provided value is superfluous. This change makes the field plain instead. This can be tested inside of that PR. - [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: > Affects clients only.
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.
Describe your changes
Looking at the ongoing integration work in: penumbra-zone/web#2041, the transaction planner request for lqt votes can only make use of a single incentivized denom anyways, which is what we want to support in the final ux, so having a repeated field here that subsequently gets truncated to the first provided value is superfluous. This change makes the field plain instead.
This can be tested inside of that PR.
Issue ticket number and link
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: