-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
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
mitigations: Dynamic party card prices #371
mitigations: Dynamic party card prices #371
Conversation
|
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feat/dynamic-party-card-price #371 +/- ##
=================================================================
+ Coverage 66.09% 66.56% +0.47%
=================================================================
Files 69 69
Lines 2911 2934 +23
Branches 636 644 +8
=================================================================
+ Hits 1924 1953 +29
+ Misses 785 783 -2
+ Partials 202 198 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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've checked that all issues brought up from audits were mitigated, except the issue of users potentially losing funds upon rageQuit()
which is still being discussed. All mitigations that were included so far look good.
A quick note here. I switched the
distributionsRequireVote
bool into thedistributionsConfig
enum. Enums are stored asuint8
in storage (and bools are stored to take a whole byte when packed in storage in a struct). Therefore, the storage layout remains identical so the proposal execution engine will be backwards compatible. Enum values map to the previous boolean values.