-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
Prorated validation rewards #603
Draft
cam-schultz
wants to merge
15
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
prorated-rewards
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4de2415
basic test passing
cam-schultz 2af7729
revert if no reward claimable
cam-schultz 1717d36
claimValidatorRewards remaining unit tests
cam-schultz 8220a73
correct uptime period calculation
cam-schultz 2025630
move uptime threshold check to PoSValidatorManager
cam-schultz 32f05d9
remove unused reward sparams
cam-schultz b61b8b2
add testing helpers
cam-schultz 776c72d
reorder methods
cam-schultz dd390a9
consistent messageIndex placement
cam-schultz 5a608bc
update abi
cam-schultz ec8b480
store uptime since validation start
cam-schultz c209726
Merge branch 'validator-manager' into prorated-rewards
cam-schultz 503da7d
format
cam-schultz d21de01
correct arg order
cam-schultz ee8ac29
Merge branch 'main' into prorated-rewards
cam-schultz File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
store uptime since validation start
- Loading branch information
commit ec8b480cea1be83c61d10ab5132c0b5a1db67699
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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.
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 understand that we want to "consume" from the totalUptime only what is needed to claim the reward. This allows the next claim to be more forgiving. However, it is now possible for claimTime - lastClaimTime to be less than totalUptime - lastClaimMinUptime in the next claim (i.e., an uptime that is longer than the claim period). This is not a problem, but seems like it is breaking an invariant at first glance. It may be worth documenting this.