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

Documented RatifyState #4759

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Documented RatifyState #4759

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Soupstraw
Copy link
Contributor

@Soupstraw Soupstraw commented Nov 18, 2024

Description

This PR adds some Haddock comments to RatifyState.

resolves #4641

Checklist

  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
  • New tests are added if needed and existing tests are updated
  • All visible changes are prepended to the latest section of a CHANGELOG.md for the affected packages.
    New section is never added with the code changes. (See RELEASING.md)
  • When applicable, versions are updated in .cabal and CHANGELOG.md files according to the
    versioning process.
  • The version bounds in .cabal files for all affected packages are updated.
    If you change the bounds in a cabal file, that package itself must have a version increase. (See RELEASING.md)
  • Code is formatted with fourmolu (use scripts/fourmolize.sh)
  • Cabal files are formatted (use scripts/cabal-format.sh)
  • hie.yaml has been updated (use scripts/gen-hie.sh)
  • Self-reviewed the diff

@Soupstraw Soupstraw marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2024 10:25
@Soupstraw Soupstraw requested a review from a team as a code owner November 19, 2024 10:25
Co-authored-by: Alexey Kuleshevich <[email protected]>
, rsDelayed :: !Bool
-- ^ True if all the governance actions will get delayed by one epoch at the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is such a small detail, but i found myself confused about it, so I will write a comment and feel free to ignore it!
I believe the following is true: if one of the actions is a delaying one, then all of them will get delayed and this flag is set to True - is this correct?
If it, then I think it would be clearer to say "True when all the governance actions will get get delayed", instead of "if", because with the "if" I read it as: all of them have to be delaying actions in order for the flag to be set to true.
I'm sure it's subjective - I'm more wanting to make sure I understand how it's actually working!

Copy link
Contributor

@teodanciu teodanciu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me

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.

Semantic & signification of RatifyState
3 participants