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

Full Unbond in Staking #3811

Open
wants to merge 69 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor

@dharjeezy dharjeezy commented Mar 24, 2024

closes #414

Polkadot address: 12GyGD3QhT4i2JJpNzvMf96sxxBLWymz4RdGCxRH5Rj5agKW

@dharjeezy dharjeezy changed the title Dami/full unbond Full Unbond in Staking Mar 24, 2024
@dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Ank4n according to @kianenigma we want to fully unbond everything after chilling. Therefore, the extrinsic don't need to take any value, also there will be no need to add a check for minimum active bond which you suggested earlier here. #3629 (comment)

Also, if we want to do a chill also when we expect a value, we can definitely do that in the unbond extrinsic. should i go ahead and include that?

@Ank4n
Copy link
Contributor

Ank4n commented Mar 27, 2024

@kianenigma wdyt about call::unbond doing chill implicitly if it is a full unbond (unbond value == ledger.total)?

@kianenigma
Copy link
Contributor

@kianenigma wdyt about call::unbond doing chill implicitly if it is a full unbond (unbond value == ledger.total)?

This is also fine with me, no strong opinion. I like your idea better as it improves UX without wallets needing to do much.

@dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK. So, should we still keep the full unbond extrinsic and also implement the implicit one that @Ank4n is suggesting?

@paritytech-review-bot paritytech-review-bot bot requested a review from a team April 9, 2024 09:14
# Conflicts:
#	polkadot/runtime/westend/src/weights/pallet_staking.rs
#	substrate/frame/staking/src/benchmarking.rs
#	substrate/frame/staking/src/pallet/impls.rs
#	substrate/frame/staking/src/pallet/mod.rs
#	substrate/frame/staking/src/weights.rs
@dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

dharjeezy commented Apr 10, 2024

@Ank4n @kianenigma
I have implicitly added the chill for unbonding

please help review again

Copy link
Contributor

@kianenigma kianenigma 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, needs more tests (for unbond fully calling chill) and better prdoc and bench etc.

@dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Ank4n can we get this merged?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This path (nomination-pools/test-transfer-stake/) does not exist anymore in master. Should be cleaned up.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i have cleaned this up now

@Ank4n
Copy link
Contributor

Ank4n commented Jan 27, 2025

@Ank4n can we get this merged?

Reaching out to few more folks to try and get the additional review.

Copy link
Contributor

@tdimitrov tdimitrov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good work @dharjeezy and thank you for the contribution.

One small question from me and I am ready to approve.

Event::Unbonded { stash: 11, amount: 1000 }
]
));
})
Copy link
Contributor

@tdimitrov tdimitrov Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably I am missing something but I don't see the asserts?

EDIT: in case github misplaces the comment, I am referring to @gpestana's comment here

@dharjeezy dharjeezy requested a review from tdimitrov January 28, 2025 13:01
@Ank4n
Copy link
Contributor

Ank4n commented Feb 6, 2025

@dharjeezy it looks like some tests are failing. Could you take a look?

@dharjeezy dharjeezy requested a review from Ank4n February 22, 2025 20:06
@dharjeezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dharjeezy it looks like some tests are failing. Could you take a look?

i have addressed this

@Ank4n
Copy link
Contributor

Ank4n commented Mar 1, 2025

bot fmt

@command-bot
Copy link

command-bot bot commented Mar 1, 2025

@Ank4n https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/8297709 was started for your command "$PIPELINE_SCRIPTS_DIR/commands/fmt/fmt.sh". Check out https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/pipelines?page=1&scope=all&username=group_605_bot to know what else is being executed currently.

Comment bot cancel 1-2aa2aa3b-d7d6-4478-8215-5bc6cd36cbda to cancel this command or bot cancel to cancel all commands in this pull request.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 1, 2025

We have migrated the command bot to GHA

Please, see the new usage instructions here or here. Soon the old commands will be disabled.

@command-bot
Copy link

command-bot bot commented Mar 1, 2025

@Ank4n Command "$PIPELINE_SCRIPTS_DIR/commands/fmt/fmt.sh" has finished. Result: https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/8297709 has finished. If any artifacts were generated, you can download them from https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/8297709/artifacts/download.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T2-pallets This PR/Issue is related to a particular pallet.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Staking force_unbond
6 participants