Skip to content

feat: CircuitBreaker vote#629

Open
failingtwice wants to merge 20 commits into
feat/next-votefrom
circuit-breaker-vote
Open

feat: CircuitBreaker vote#629
failingtwice wants to merge 20 commits into
feat/next-votefrom
circuit-breaker-vote

Conversation

@failingtwice
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@failingtwice failingtwice requested a review from a team as a code owner May 15, 2026 09:19
@failingtwice failingtwice marked this pull request as draft May 15, 2026 09:20
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_15.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_15.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_15.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py Outdated
@failingtwice failingtwice changed the base branch from master to feat/next-vote June 1, 2026 08:19
@failingtwice failingtwice marked this pull request as ready for review June 1, 2026 12:07
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py Outdated
@failingtwice failingtwice force-pushed the circuit-breaker-vote branch from a9216a4 to ae29064 Compare June 2, 2026 08:44
@failingtwice failingtwice force-pushed the circuit-breaker-vote branch from ae29064 to cbc2970 Compare June 2, 2026 08:45
Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py
)

# getPeriodState before enactment, to compare against the expected post-enactment change.
lol_spent_before, lol_spendable_before, _, _ = lol_registry.getPeriodState()
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

validate timestamps against LOL_PERIOD_START_AFTER...

Comment thread tests/test_2026_06_17.py Outdated
)

# RESUME_ROLE: untouched by the DG proposal.
if pre_dg_resume_role_holders:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • if this if evaluates to false - should it be asserted?
  • same q for pre_dg_cb_globals
  • pre_dg_lol_period_state - the values inside this object are never ifed

in general - i think we should
a. leave only pre_dg_resume_role_holders object - only pre_dg_resume_role_holders has dynamic keys, having other 2 objects and copying date to it seems to be redundand
b. run after-dg tests inside "if details["status"] != PROPOSAL_STATUS["executed"]:" statement so that before- values are always available and we do not expect them to be empty; this is ok because we do not run these tests once the proposal is enacted

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.

2 participants