-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
Quitting the Dao (old) #48
Conversation
There are open questions, such was: - should quitting be still classified as a proposal? - should it execute immediately? - how should it behave for non-existing users? - is being tagged for the next cleanup a better approach?
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.
Overall looking good, thanks. The simulation tests in test_quit
were a bit confusing to read with a mixture of closures and functions, but I think we can work with that. Wouldn't hurt to have a bit more high-level comments peppered throughout tests. But also, thanks for the details comments above the functions, that's very helpful.
I'm going to open a pull request on something small that seems worth doing a different way.
Hotfix/remove sim test code
Thanks for the review Mike! I had placed the closures into functions, which I agree makes it easier to reason about the code! Can improve the overall commenting as well! I'm closing this issue in favor of #67, which contains updates from main and updated binaries |
Partial implementation of #41
There are open questions, such was:
quitting is considered a direct action that a user can call, alongside add_proposal and act_proposal .
quitting doesn't cleanup any data besides removing the user account from the roles.
this is still missing the policies questions, as raised on Quitting the DAO #41.