withdraw withdrawn rewards #18
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
codchen
force-pushed
the
withdraw-withdrawn-rewards
branch
from
44c196a to
ad6585a
Compare
udpatil
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
| @@ -360,6 +365,33 @@ fn execute_initiate_withdraw_reward( | |||
| Ok(response) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // rewards may be automatically withdrawn to contract's bank balance during redelegation/undelegation/delegating | |||
| // more to the same validator. The amount of such withdrawn rewards, assuming no external deposit to the contract | |||
| // is present, can be calculated as: bank balance - (total - withdrawn principal - staked - unbonding). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should update this comment since it is no longer including "unbonding" right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to keep it there as a reminder of what the correct calculation should be. There is a note on the line below stating that we are omitting unbonding for now and why
| let bank_balance = deps.querier.query_balance(env.contract.address.clone(), DENOM.load(deps.storage)?)?.amount.u128(); | ||
| let total_locked: u128 = VESTING_AMOUNTS.load(deps.storage)?.iter().sum(); | ||
| let withdrawn_principal = WITHDRAWN_LOCKED.load(deps.storage)? + WITHDRAWN_UNLOCKED.load(deps.storage)?; | ||
| let staked: u128 = deps.querier.query_all_delegations(env.contract.address)?.iter().map(|del: &Delegation| -> u128 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will this query intentionally exclude rewards? as in, it will only return the principal staked?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
delegations are always principals as we don't reinvest rewards into staking
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Describe your changes and provide context
rewards may be automatically withdrawn to contract's bank balance during redelegation/undelegation/delegating more to the same validator. The amount of such withdrawn rewards, assuming no external deposit to the contract is present, can be calculated as: bank balance - (total - withdrawn principal - staked - unbonding).
Note that because CW currently doesn't support querying unbonding amount, we will ignore unbonding amount in the calculationg for now. This would make under-withdraw possible but still impossible to over-withdraw (which is bad).
To avoid under-withdraw, the operator can wait till there is no unbonding amount for the contract when executing
rewards withdrawal.
Testing performed to validate your change
unit test & local sei test