feat: r/gov/dao v2
#2581
feat: r/gov/dao v2
#2581
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
🧾 package/realm
|
The high-level feedback is:
|
| import "strings" | ||
|
|
||
| // CombinedError is a combined execution error | ||
| type CombinedError struct { |
| "gno.land/p/demo/context" | ||
| "gno.land/p/gov/proposal" | ||
| "gno.land/p/demo/dao" | ||
| govdao "gno.land/r/gov/dao/v2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should not depend on a specific govdao version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resolved in:
| "gno.land/p/demo/ufmt" | ||
| pVals "gno.land/p/sys/validators" | ||
| govdao "gno.land/r/gov/dao" | ||
| "gno.land/r/sys/validators" | ||
| govdao "gno.land/r/gov/dao/v2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should find a solution to avoid depending on a specific GovDAO version.
You can either use another mechanism or create a r/valopers/v2/govdaov2 helper package. This will allow us to build the necessary bridge if we switch to GovDAO v3.
Let me know if you can't find an elegant solution, and I can help you brainstorm one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've tried to apply the proxy pattern you've mentioned, and I think it fits in nice. Realms that require an expanded GovDAO API will just define their own "bridge", or have some kind of update mechanism.
Let me know what you think:
| // Craft the proposal comment | ||
| comment := ufmt.Sprintf( | ||
| // Craft the proposal description | ||
| description := ufmt.Sprintf( | ||
| "Proposal to add valoper %s (Address: %s; PubKey: %s) to the valset", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "Proposal to add valoper %s (Address: %s; PubKey: %s) to the valset", | |
| "Add valoper %s (Address: %s; PubKey: %s) to the valset", |
|
|
||
| // maxRequestVotes is the maximum number of | ||
| // paginated votes that can be requested | ||
| maxRequestVotes = 50 |
| gno.land/p/nt/poa v0.0.0-latest | ||
| gno.land/p/sys/validators v0.0.0-latest | ||
| gno.land/r/gov/dao/v2 v0.0.0-latest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r/sys/validators shouldn't depend on r/gov/dao/v2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resolved in:
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Proposal is the single proposal abstraction | ||
| type Proposal interface { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note to self: Wouldn't it be better and more secure to use a struct here? What if we define a custom struct that implements the interface for an attack?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to leave the implementation details of the proposal up to the package / realm creator:
// Proposal is the single proposal abstraction
type Proposal interface {
// Author returns the author of the proposal
Author() std.Address
// Description returns the description of the proposal
Description() string
// Status returns the status of the proposal
Status() ProposalStatus
// Executor returns the proposal executor
Executor() Executor
// Stats returns the voting stats of the proposal
Stats() Stats
// IsExpired returns a flag indicating if the proposal expired
IsExpired() bool
// Render renders the proposal in a readable format
Render() string
}The Package abstraction is completely read-only anyways. An example of this is the simpledao.proposal, which is an implementation of a Proposal that has tally information
| @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ | |||
| package dao | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a comment to explain that the vote will be removed from this p/demo/dao package. A DAO shouldn't have to comply with or define how the voting mechanism works internally; it should be viewed as an entity that makes decisions. Therefore, we should focus on the proposal rather than the votes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want to merge this PR soon, so I'm in favor of just adding the comment. However, please note that this is the biggest weakness of this implementation, and it's the only issue I see that will require us to create a v2.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked, it turns out the extent of "votes" being present in the dao package is just in the context of a single type Stats. We don't enforce a voting strategy in the p/demo/dao package, at all.
simpledao, which is a DAO implementation, exposes its own vote method, that is not standard.
I've added a comment to make it clear:
| func WithInitialMembers(members []Member) Option { | ||
| return func(store *MembStore) { | ||
| for _, m := range members { | ||
| store.members.Set(m.Address.String(), m) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added check, good catch:
| status dao.ProposalStatus // status of the proposal | ||
|
|
||
| tally *tally // voting tally | ||
| getTotalVotingPowerFn func() uint64 // callback for the total voting power |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i don't get the reason for having this callback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Voting power information is not contained in the proposal, but in the membstore that's associated with the DAO. We need this callback to construct the proposal stats:
func (p *proposal) Stats() dao.Stats {
// Get the total voting power of the body
totalPower := p.getTotalVotingPowerFn()
return dao.Stats{
YayVotes: p.tally.yays,
NayVotes: p.tally.nays,
AbstainVotes: p.tally.abstains,
TotalVotingPower: totalPower,
}
}We set it when initializing the proposal:
// Create the wrapped proposal
prop := &proposal{
author: caller,
description: request.Description,
executor: request.Executor,
status: dao.Active,
tally: newTally(),
getTotalVotingPowerFn: s.membStore.TotalPower,
}
Co-authored-by: Manfred Touron <[email protected]>
…/gno into dev/zivkovicmilos/govdao
|
|
||
| import "strings" | ||
|
|
||
| // CombinedError is a combined execution error |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // CombinedError is a combined execution error | |
| // CombinedError is a combined execution error. |
Nitpick: in comments, sentences end with a period. It can be enforced by a linter. I only reported this line, but there are many other occurences of missing period.
| // ACTIVE -> ACCEPTED -> EXECUTION(SUCCEEDED/FAILED) | ||
| // ACTIVE -> NOT ACCEPTED |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick: these comment lines should be part of a comment block for type ProposalStatus string declaration, with a short explanation sentence.
We should use a linter for missing comments for exports.
|
|
||
| return m | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // AddMember adds member to the member store `m`. | |
| // It fails if `m` is not a GovDAO or if member is already in store. |
|
|
||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // UpdateMember updates the MembStore in case of change of member address or voting power. | |
| // It fails if the MembStore is not a a GovDAO. |
|
|
||
| type VoteOption string | ||
|
|
||
| const ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should it be an option DidNotVote at iota, as it indicates a missing vote, different from voluntary abstention? What impact on decision rules, quorum, etc?
I see that later in the code you keep track of missing votes (it is always useful), but it is not clear to me if, when and why missing vote == abstain, in the context of a generic govDAO where provided specific governance rules could be different.
|
|
||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // IsMember returns true if the member associated with address is in m store. |
|
|
||
| return exists | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // Member returns the member entry in m corresponding to address, or an error if not present. |
|
|
||
| return member.(Member), nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had difficuties to understand Members() API. May be it would help it you keep the same idiom as Go slices: if m was a Go array, members(start, end uint64) would return m[start:end].
| func (m *MembStore) Size() int { | ||
| return m.members.Size() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // Size() returns the number of members of the member store. |
Description
This PR introduces an upgrade to the
r/gov/daosystem:p/demo/simpledaoimplementationContributors' checklist...
BREAKING CHANGE: xxxmessage was included in the description