Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add a governor extension that implements a proposal guardian #5303
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add a governor extension that implements a proposal guardian #5303
Changes from 7 commits
6330d4c
578543d
fb6e8b7
d613cc8
25eeb02
8379051
5ba4596
954b03c
e56c8b2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The default behavior in Governor is to only allow the proposer to cancel when the proposal is still pending. I don't think we want to allow proposers to cancel after that.
Also, if we want to keep the default behavior, wouldn't it be better to just?:
This would simplify this function imo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
return super.cancel(targets, values, calldatas, descriptionHash);
is already what we do in the last case ... so what you are proposing would be simplified further by doingNote that it would change the behavior! What we have right now is:
The changes would make it that if there is no guardian, the proposer is still restricted to only canceling during the propose phase.
What behavior do we want ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I shared a proposal down below. My main concern is that we're missing supper in the branches where there's no guardian and when there's a guardian.
For example, in this code, users could override
_validateCancel
and call super to 1) add the guardian behavior and 2) extend the canceler permissions:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In this solution, we will not call super for
_validateCancel
, which may also skip side effects. I don't see how it's materially better and I'm weary of adding another internal function.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
_validateCancel
could be view though