Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 28, 2023. It is now read-only.

[Pending] Rebond unlocking chunks #97

Draft
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: polkadot-v0.9.29
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shunsukew
Copy link
Member

@shunsukew shunsukew commented Sep 15, 2022

Solves #63

Pull Request Summary
Added feature rebond_and_stake unlocking chunks to contracts.

Once stakers start the unbonding, their unbonded funds will remain locked during the unbonding period. During this period, these funds neither generate any rewards nor can they be used for payment, transfer, etc.

One functionality we could provide is for stakers to re-bond their unbonding chunks. They could select unbonding chunks as a source when staking on a contract from UI, similar as they do for nomination_transfer. This will result in unbonding chunks being consumed and (re)staked on some contract.

Check list

  • added unit tests
  • added benchmark
  • added chain extension
  • added precompiles
  • updated documentation

@shunsukew shunsukew changed the title rebond unlocking chunks [WIP] Rebond unlocking chunks Sep 15, 2022
frame/dapps-staking/src/pallet/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@shunsukew shunsukew requested a review from Dinonard September 16, 2022 07:15
@shunsukew shunsukew changed the title [WIP] Rebond unlocking chunks Rebond unlocking chunks Sep 16, 2022
@shunsukew shunsukew marked this pull request as ready for review September 16, 2022 07:15
@shunsukew shunsukew requested a review from akru September 16, 2022 12:14
@hoonsubin hoonsubin requested a review from 0x7CFE September 19, 2022 08:25
@shunsukew
Copy link
Member Author

compilation started to fail after pushing small commit 852fb39. Why, will check

chain-extensions/dapps-staking/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
chain-extensions/types/dapps-staking/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 220 to 236
rebond_and_stake {
initialize::<T>();

let (_, contract_id) = register_contract::<T>(1)?;
prepare_bond_and_stake::<T>(T::MaxNumberOfStakersPerContract::get() - 1, &contract_id, SEED)?;

let staker = whitelisted_caller();
let _ = T::Currency::make_free_balance_be(&staker, BalanceOf::<T>::max_value());
let stake_amount = BalanceOf::<T>::max_value() / 2u32.into();
let unstake_amount = stake_amount / 2u32.into();

DappsStaking::<T>::bond_and_stake(RawOrigin::Signed(staker.clone()).into(), contract_id.clone(), stake_amount)?;
DappsStaking::<T>::unbond_and_unstake(RawOrigin::Signed(staker.clone()).into(), contract_id.clone(), unstake_amount)?;
}: _(RawOrigin::Signed(staker.clone()), contract_id.clone())
verify {
assert_last_event::<T>(Event::<T>::RebondAndStake(staker, contract_id, unstake_amount).into());
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: I'd like to have some comments describing what is actually happening.

@shunsukew shunsukew requested a review from 0x7CFE September 21, 2022 14:15
Copy link
Contributor

@0x7CFE 0x7CFE left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM aside of small nits

Comment on lines +346 to +354
let base_weight =
<T as pallet_dapps_staking::Config>::WeightInfo::rebond_and_stake();
env.charge_weight(base_weight)?;

let caller = env.ext().address().clone();
let call_result = pallet_dapps_staking::Pallet::<T>::rebond_and_stake(
RawOrigin::Signed(caller).into(),
contract,
);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was kinda confused since rebond_and_stake is called twice in a row. I do understand that these are two different calls, but still this is a bit confusing. Maybe we should add couple of comments to reduce overall WTF/minute.

Copy link
Member Author

@shunsukew shunsukew Sep 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can be said for other functions too. it's a more universal topic.
I thought it's very clear they are different and what they do because they are different methods, one is WeightInfo's and another is Pallet's.

@@ -120,27 +123,29 @@ pub enum Contract<Account> {
Wasm(Account),
}

pub type ContractBytes = [u8; 32];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this type is in public it would be a good idea to add some explanatory comment. What is this type, why it 32 bytes long, what is the purpose of that type, etc.

@shunsukew shunsukew changed the base branch from polkadot-v0.9.28 to polkadot-v0.9.29 September 23, 2022 04:15
@github-actions
Copy link

Code Coverage

Package Line Rate Branch Rate Health
chain-extensions/trait/src 0% 0%
chain-extensions/rmrk/src 0% 0%
chain-extensions/types/dapps-staking/src 0% 0%
contracts/xvm/src 0% 0%
frame/dapps-staking/src/pallet 90% 0%
frame/block-reward/src 96% 0%
frame/pallet-xcm/src 81% 0%
chain-extensions/xvm/src 0% 0%
frame/pallet-xvm/src 9% 0%
precompiles/utils/macro/src 0% 0%
precompiles/utils/src/data 72% 0%
chain-extensions/dapps-staking/src 0% 0%
frame/collator-selection/src 88% 0%
precompiles/substrate-ecdsa/src 78% 0%
precompiles/xvm/src 71% 0%
primitives/xcm/src 88% 0%
precompiles/utils/src 84% 0%
chain-extensions/types/rmrk/src 0% 0%
frame/pallet-xvm/src/pallet 37% 0%
precompiles/assets-erc20/src 91% 0%
frame/dapps-staking/src 94% 0%
precompiles/dapps-staking/src 95% 0%
precompiles/sr25519/src 78% 0%
chain-extensions/types/xvm/src 0% 0%
precompiles/utils/macro/tests 100% 0%
precompiles/xcm/src 80% 0%
frame/xc-asset-config/src 87% 0%
frame/custom-signatures/src 81% 0%
Summary 80% (7588 / 9480) 0% (0 / 0)

Minimum allowed line rate is 60%

@shunsukew
Copy link
Member Author

shunsukew commented Sep 28, 2022

@Dinonard I also added chain extension and precompiles, but I started to think they should be separately released (in a different PR) after this function become stable. What do you think?

Copy link
Member

@Dinonard Dinonard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for working on this!

About your precompile/chain-extension questions, I think we should keep them out of this PR. And maybe we shouldn't add them at all.
Your comment about feature being stable makes sense and I'd also add the point that we'll be redesigning dapps-staking very soon. It's not necessarily true that this function will be compatible with new version so I'd wait until then with it. That way we reduce number of incompatible legacy functions.

///
/// All unbonding chunks will be used and staked to the specified contract.
///
/// The dispatch origin for this call must be _Signed_ by the staker's account.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please also check top of lib.rs file and update comments there if needed.

GeneralEraInfo::<T>::mutate(&current_era, |value| {
if let Some(x) = value {
x.staked = x.staked.saturating_add(value_to_stake);
x.locked = x.locked.saturating_add(value_to_stake);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is incorrect - TVL doesn't increase after this since unbonding chunks are still considered to be locked.

UT should be updated to catch this.

Comment on lines +403 to +406
assert_eq!(
final_state.era_info.locked,
init_state.era_info.locked + expected_stake_amount
);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is incorrect, see my comment above.

);
})
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd suggest also covering the error cases with InsufficientValue or TooManyEraStakeValues.

Not mandatory, just a suggestion.

@shunsukew
Copy link
Member Author

shunsukew commented Oct 19, 2022

Thanks for working on this!

About your precompile/chain-extension questions, I think we should keep them out of this PR. And maybe we shouldn't add them at all. Your comment about feature being stable makes sense and I'd also add the point that we'll be redesigning dapps-staking very soon. It's not necessarily true that this function will be compatible with new version so I'd wait until then with it. That way we reduce number of incompatible legacy functions.

That makes sense.
In that case, I'd make this PR pending until the redesign and its implementation finish. I'll resume this PR work after that.

@shunsukew shunsukew changed the title Rebond unlocking chunks [Pending] Rebond unlocking chunks Oct 19, 2022
@shunsukew shunsukew marked this pull request as draft October 19, 2022 05:01
@Dinonard
Copy link
Member

Thanks for working on this!
About your precompile/chain-extension questions, I think we should keep them out of this PR. And maybe we shouldn't add them at all. Your comment about feature being stable makes sense and I'd also add the point that we'll be redesigning dapps-staking very soon. It's not necessarily true that this function will be compatible with new version so I'd wait until then with it. That way we reduce number of incompatible legacy functions.

That makes sense. In that case, I'd make this PR pending until the redesign and its implementation finish. I'll resume this PR work after that.

I'm not sure how feasible is that, tbh. We don't know if this will even be applicable then.

I don't see an issue with this being merged now but we should avoid precompiles/chain-extensions. Also, not sure how much it makes sense to ask UI team to do this since it will most likely be changed soon.

Anyhow, draft status that you used is probably the way to go.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants