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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Documented RatifyState #4759

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+9 −0
Open

Documented RatifyState #4759

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions eras/conway/impl/src/Cardano/Ledger/Conway/Governance/Internal.hs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -266,11 +266,20 @@ instance EraPParams era => NoThunks (EnactState era)

-- ========================================

-- | `RatifyState` stores information about what will happen to the active
-- governance actions at the next epoch boundary.
data RatifyState era = RatifyState
{ rsEnactState :: !(EnactState era)
, rsEnacted :: !(Seq (GovActionState era))
-- ^ Governance actions that are going to be enacted at the next epoch
-- boundary.
, rsExpired :: !(Set (GovActionId (EraCrypto era)))
-- ^ Governance actions that are going to be removed at the next epoch
-- boundary, either due to expiring or because they would become invalid
-- after another governance action gets enacted or expired before it
, 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!

-- next epoch boundary
}
deriving (Generic)

Expand Down