Feature/1204080823207081 staking collect mechanism #14
Conversation
tools/utils.py
Outdated
| # Example 3: ex_stack = ExtrinsicStack() | ||
| @dataclass | ||
| class ExtrinsicStack: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we talk about the stack, the first thing that comes into my mind is first in, last out. Does this follow this sequence?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh you want to name it ExtrinsicFifo? 😄 Yeah, in that meaning, it maybe is not a stack actually... I just had something in my mind like a batch... Or ExtrinisicBatch? Shall we rename it for more clarity?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the ExtrinisicBatch is good
tools/reward_distribution_test.py
Outdated
| # extrinsics for both validators again | ||
| print('Waiting for round about 3 blocks to be finalized...') | ||
| time.sleep(WAIT_TIME_PERIOD) | ||
| # Only increment rewards to check these without Tx-Fees |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does that mean we remove the claim_rewards extrinsic? Is it clear that we are using the below code?
with ExtrinsicStack(substrate, kp_alice) as ex_stack_new:
setup the increment_collator_rewards on ex_stack_new
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this position, I removed the extrinsic claim_rewards because it enables to check the transferred rewards accurately. When transferring to the Alice's or Bob's account you have to consider the transaction fee payment somehow... and calculating transaction fees is still difficult without good model... But the extrinsic 'claim_rewards' will be executed before, when taking care, that there are no more rewards able to be claimed... Usually this will occur for sure, when running all test cases, because then a number of blocks fill be finalized before and a lot of rewards can be claimed by Alice and Bob, until this test will start - BUT, We can make sure, that this will definitely happen, by adding another waiting time, in the beginning of the test... what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
About the code logic, I agree with you. However, I just started to think about how to make these codes easier to maintain. When I saw the pop, I needed to understand three things, what is inside the ex_stack, why do we remove that, and whether here are related to each other.
Therefore, I would suggest using the new ex_stack instead of pop that in your case, or is the cost of creating the ex_stack high? What do you think?
tools/utils.py
Outdated
| # Example 3: ex_stack = ExtrinsicStack() | ||
| @dataclass | ||
| class ExtrinsicStack: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the ExtrinisicBatch is good
tools/reward_distribution_test.py
Outdated
| # extrinsics for both validators again | ||
| print('Waiting for round about 3 blocks to be finalized...') | ||
| time.sleep(WAIT_TIME_PERIOD) | ||
| # Only increment rewards to check these without Tx-Fees |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
About the code logic, I agree with you. However, I just started to think about how to make these codes easier to maintain. When I saw the pop, I needed to understand three things, what is inside the ex_stack, why do we remove that, and whether here are related to each other.
Therefore, I would suggest using the new ex_stack instead of pop that in your case, or is the cost of creating the ex_stack high? What do you think?
tools/reward_distribution_test.py
Outdated
| bl_hash_bob_start = ex_stack.execute(kp_bob) | ||
|
|
||
| # Debug: Double check that number of authored is equal to rewarded | ||
| if DEBUG: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are checking more in this debug, but why do we check that only the debug symbol is on? If that's important, then it shouldn't be skipped. Or if we restart the parachain, does that help?
Because in your below debug branch, you only show the information but not check
neutrinoks
deleted the
feature/1204080823207081_staking-collect-mechanism
branch
No description provided.