feat: update voting rules #9

linguists · 2025-07-22T02:15:26Z

Update Voting Rules

No more votes are allowed after deadline passes;
No voting result until deadline is reached. The voting result will be concluded in the first ping() after deadline;
The proposal will pass if both conditions are satisfied:
1. total voted stake > 1/3 of total validator stake
2. stake voted with YES > 2/3 of total voted stake

Summary by CodeRabbit

New Features
- Added tracking of both vote type and stake for each voter, allowing more detailed vote accounting.
- Introduced a new event for proposal rejections with detailed stake and vote counts.
- Proposal approval and rejection events now include the amount of "yes" stake and other voting metrics.
Improvements
- Refined proposal approval conditions to consider both total voted stake and the proportion of "yes" votes.
- Enhanced accuracy in stake calculations and event reporting.
- Enforced voting deadline on vote submissions while allowing stake updates after the deadline.
Tests
- Updated tests to reflect new vote data structures and approval/rejection logic.
- Added tests verifying correct stake tracking and proposal rejection scenarios.
Chores
- Updated build and test commands in README.
- Streamlined Makefile targets by removing redundant test dependency.
- Updated version number to 0.2.0.
Scripts
- Improved test scripts with dynamic environment variables and expanded validator setup.
- Adjusted voting script to use updated voting account and parameters.

coderabbitai · 2025-07-22T02:15:32Z

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new VotedStake struct to track both the vote type and stake per voter, update the contract's vote storage and accounting logic, and refine proposal approval conditions. The ProposalApproved event now includes a yes_stake field, and a new ProposalRejected event variant is added. Voting and proposal approval logic is updated throughout to support these changes.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
src/events.rs	Added new `ProposalRejected` variant with detailed stake and vote count fields; added `yes_stake`, `num_votes_yes`, and `num_votes_total` fields to `ProposalApproved` variant.
src/lib.rs	Introduced `VotedStake` struct; updated `votes` map to store `VotedStake`; added `yes_stake` field; changed `result` from `Option<Timestamp>` to `Option<bool>`; revised voting, ping, and proposal approval logic; updated event emission and view methods; adjusted tests accordingly.
tests/test_vote.rs	Updated test deserialization of votes from `HashMap<AccountId, String>` to `HashMap<AccountId, (Vote, U128)>`; adjusted imports and assertions to reflect new vote and stake tuple structure; no changes to public entities.
tests/scripts/create-proposal.sh	Updated environment variables for voting account and deadline; modified contract deployment command to use explicit wasm path.
tests/scripts/create-validators.sh	Changed voting account ID; updated validator account naming and iteration range; adjusted staking pool wasm path.
tests/scripts/vote.sh	Changed voting account ID; reduced loop iterations; updated validator ID prefix; changed contract call arguments and caller account.
README.md	Updated build and test instructions to use `make` and `make test` instead of `cargo near build` and `cargo test`.
makefile	Removed `validator-voting-test` from the `all` target dependencies, so `make all` runs only `lint` and `validator-voting`.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Contract
    participant Events

    User->>Contract: Casts vote (internal_vote)
    Contract->>Contract: Update votes map with VotedStake (vote + stake)
    Contract->>Contract: Update total_voted_stake and yes_stake
    User->>Contract: Calls ping
    Contract->>Contract: Recalculate stakes for all votes
    Contract->>Contract: Update total_voted_stake and yes_stake
    Contract->>Contract: Call check_result
    alt Approval conditions met
        Contract->>Events: Emit ProposalApproved with stake details
    else Rejection conditions met
        Contract->>Events: Emit ProposalRejected with stake details
    end

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes

Possibly related PRs

feat: vote with choice yes or no #6: Introduces explicit yes/no vote choices and updates events to include vote choice; this PR builds upon that feature by refining stake tracking and adding rejection events.
fix: vote from new staking pool contract #5: Modifies core voting logic including vote and ping methods; related by overlapping voting mechanism changes but focuses on staking pool ownership verification.
feat: validator voting contract #1: Introduces the initial validator voting contract and original event enum; this PR extends and modifies those foundational definitions.

Suggested reviewers

arkff202310
dongcool

Poem

In the meadow of code, where proposals awake,
Each bunny now counts both the vote and the stake.
With yes-stakes in paw and events in the air,
Approval or rejection hops forth with care.
Votes and stakes entwined, a dance so bright,
🐇✨ Coding by day, dreaming by night!

Note

⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!

Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 26f1aef and d7b63b9.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
src/lib.rs (18 hunks)
tests/test_vote.rs (10 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

Cargo.toml

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

tests/test_vote.rs

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (2)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#1
File: src/lib.rs:12-18
Timestamp: 2025-05-14T03:23:47.323Z
Learning: The team is aware of potential gas inefficiency with using `std::collections::HashMap` instead of `near_sdk::collections::UnorderedMap` or `LookupMap` for storing validator votes in the validator-voting contract. They plan to test the actual gas usage in integration tests in a future PR before deciding whether to implement this optimization.

src/lib.rs (2)

Learnt from: linguists
PR: #8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

Learnt from: linguists
PR: #1
File: src/lib.rs:12-18
Timestamp: 2025-05-14T03:23:47.323Z
Learning: The team is aware of potential gas inefficiency with using std::collections::HashMap instead of near_sdk::collections::UnorderedMap or LookupMap for storing validator votes in the validator-voting contract. They plan to test the actual gas usage in integration tests in a future PR before deciding whether to implement this optimization.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

GitHub Check: Tests
GitHub Check: Code Linter

🔇 Additional comments (9)

src/lib.rs (9)

18-31: Well-designed data structures for enhanced vote tracking.

The addition of PartialEq, Clone, and Debug traits to the Vote enum and the new VotedStake struct effectively support the updated voting logic. The structure combines vote choice with stake amount, enabling proper tracking of both vote type and associated stake per validator.

41-51: Contract state properly updated for new voting logic.

The contract state changes effectively support the enhanced voting requirements:

votes map now stores VotedStake for comprehensive vote tracking

yes_stake field enables efficient tracking of YES votes for approval calculations

result field appropriately changed from Option<Timestamp> to Option<bool>

56-73: Initialization properly updated.

The constructor correctly initializes the new yes_stake field to 0 while preserving all existing validation logic.

76-93: ping() method correctly implements stake updates after deadline.

The method properly resets and recalculates vote stakes based on current validator stakes, allowing for stake changes after the voting deadline as specified in the PR objectives. The logic correctly separates YES and NO vote stake tracking.

97-127: Vote method and callback properly maintained.

The addition of with_unused_gas_weight(0) follows NEAR SDK best practices, and the security validation in the callback method remains intact.

130-183: internal_vote() correctly implements deadline enforcement and stake accounting.

The method properly:

Enforces voting deadline as specified in PR objectives

Validates validator stake before allowing votes

Handles complex stake accounting for vote changes

Updates both total voted stake and YES stake tracking

Stores comprehensive vote information

The logic correctly handles switching between YES/NO votes and maintains accurate stake totals.

186-229: check_result() correctly implements new approval conditions.

The method properly enforces the updated voting rules:

Results are only determined after the deadline

Approval requires both >1/3 total validator participation AND >2/3 YES votes of participating stake

Comprehensive event emission for both approval and rejection scenarios

This implementation aligns perfectly with the PR objectives for stricter voting conditions.

234-275: View methods properly updated for new data structures.

The view methods correctly expose the enhanced vote tracking:

get_total_voted_stake() provides comprehensive stake breakdown including YES stake

get_votes() properly returns vote type with stake amounts

get_result() appropriately returns boolean approval status

Documentation accurately notes the need for ping() to update stake data

277-805: Comprehensive test coverage for updated voting logic.

The test suite thoroughly covers the enhanced voting functionality:

Deadline enforcement and post-deadline behavior

Stake tracking and epoch transitions

Vote switching and validator status changes

Proposal approval/rejection under various scenarios

Edge cases like validator kickout and re-entry

The tests properly validate the new voting rules and data structures, ensuring the implementation meets the PR objectives.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch feat/update-voting-rules

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Explain this complex logic.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai explain this code block.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
@coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
@coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🔭 Outside diff range comments (2)

src/lib.rs (2)
18-23: Add missing Borsh serialization traits to the Vote enum

The Vote enum needs to implement Borsh serialization traits since it's used within VotedStake which requires both borsh and json serialization.
 #[near(serializers = [json])]
+#[derive(PartialEq)]
 #[serde(rename_all = "lowercase")]
 pub enum Vote {
     Yes,
     No,
 }
Additionally, update the #[near(serializers = [json])] annotation to include borsh:
-#[near(serializers = [json])]
+#[near(serializers = [borsh, json])]
214-218: Fix the conversion from VotedStake to U128

The code attempts to convert the entire VotedStake struct to U128, but should only convert the stake field.
 pub fn get_votes(&self) -> HashMap<AccountId, U128> {
     self.votes
         .iter()
-        .map(|(account_id, stake)| (account_id.clone(), (*stake).into()))
+        .map(|(account_id, voted_stake)| (account_id.clone(), voted_stake.stake.into()))
         .collect()
 }

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a6c56c5 and 3e73c58.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

src/events.rs (1 hunks)
src/lib.rs (6 hunks)

🧠 Learnings (3)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#1
File: src/lib.rs:12-18
Timestamp: 2025-05-14T03:23:47.323Z
Learning: The team is aware of potential gas inefficiency with using `std::collections::HashMap` instead of `near_sdk::collections::UnorderedMap` or `LookupMap` for storing validator votes in the validator-voting contract. They plan to test the actual gas usage in integration tests in a future PR before deciding whether to implement this optimization.

src/events.rs (1)

Learnt from: linguists
PR: #8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

src/lib.rs (2)

Learnt from: linguists
PR: #8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

Learnt from: linguists
PR: #1
File: src/lib.rs:12-18
Timestamp: 2025-05-14T03:23:47.323Z
Learning: The team is aware of potential gas inefficiency with using std::collections::HashMap instead of near_sdk::collections::UnorderedMap or LookupMap for storing validator votes in the validator-voting contract. They plan to test the actual gas usage in integration tests in a future PR before deciding whether to implement this optimization.

🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)

src/lib.rs (2)

src/utils.rs (2)

validator_stake (58-63)

validator_total_stake (65-70)

tests/contracts/mock-staking-pool/src/lib.rs (2)

vote (15-15)

vote (81-87)

🪛 GitHub Actions: Build

src/lib.rs

[error] 182-182: Cannot find value total_voted_stake in this scope. Did you mean self.total_voted_stake?

[error] 25-25: Trait BorshSerialize is not implemented for Vote. Required by #[near(serializers = [borsh, json])] macro.

[error] 25-25: Trait BorshDeserialize is not implemented for Vote. Required by #[near(serializers = [borsh, json])] macro.

[error] 27-27: Trait BorshSchema is not implemented for Vote used in field vote.

[error] 84-84: Binary operation == cannot be applied to type Vote. Missing implementation of PartialEq for Vote. Consider adding #[derive(PartialEq)].

[error] 142-142: Trait Default is not implemented for &VotedStake. unwrap_or_default() cannot be called on Option<&VotedStake>.

[error] 151-151: Binary operation == cannot be applied to type Vote. Missing implementation of PartialEq for Vote. Consider adding #[derive(PartialEq)].

[error] 217-217: Trait From<VotedStake> is not implemented for U128. Cannot convert VotedStake into U128.

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (3)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#8
File: src/lib.rs:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-06-25T09:08:36.725Z
Learning: In the validator voting contract (src/lib.rs), the voting system intentionally handles "no" votes and zero-stake "yes" votes differently: validators who vote "no" are removed from the votes map and not re-inserted, while validators who voted "yes" but got kicked out (have 0 stake) are kept in the votes map with 0 stake to preserve their original voting intent. This asymmetric behavior in ping() vs internal_vote() is by design, not an inconsistency.

Learnt from: linguists
PR: linear-protocol/validator-voting-contract#1
File: src/lib.rs:12-18
Timestamp: 2025-05-14T03:23:47.323Z
Learning: The team is aware of potential gas inefficiency with using `std::collections::HashMap` instead of `near_sdk::collections::UnorderedMap` or `LookupMap` for storing validator votes in the validator-voting contract. They plan to test the actual gas usage in integration tests in a future PR before deciding whether to implement this optimization.