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

Allow voting with locks whose voted-for-proposal did not receive any funds #231

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Feb 25, 2025

Conversation

p-offtermatt
Copy link
Member

Description

Closes: N/A

Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that
are the most critical to review.

This makes it so that if a lock has voted for a long-deployment-duration proposal in a past round,
but that proposal did not end up getting any funds deployed, then the lock can vote again.

This adds:

  • logic in process_votes to let locks vote
  • logic in enrich_lockups_with_tranche_infos to properly reflect this in the query endpoints
  • a unit test to verify the new behaviour

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • Targeted the correct branch
  • Included the necessary unit tests
  • Added/adjusted the necessary interchain tests
  • Added a changelog entry in .changelog
  • Compiled the contracts by using make compile and included content of the artifacts directory into the PR
  • Regenerated front-end schema by using make schema and included generated files into the PR
  • Updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • Reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • Confirmed all CI checks have passed

@p-offtermatt p-offtermatt requested a review from a team as a code owner February 25, 2025 08:52
@p-offtermatt p-offtermatt merged commit c0e6de5 into main Feb 25, 2025
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants