mirror of
https://github.com/pezkuwichain/pezkuwi-subxt.git
synced 2026-05-06 04:28:01 +00:00
Peter Goodspeed-Niklaus
44d5aba80d
* Create a macro which automates creation of benchmark test suites. * bump impl_version * allow unused on test_bench_by_name * use proper doctest ignore attribute * Explicitly hand the Module to the test suite Much better practice than depending on it showing up implicitly in the namespace. * explicitly import what we need into `mod tests` * bench_module is `ident` not `tt` Co-authored-by: Guillaume Thiolliere <gui.thiolliere@gmail.com> * allow end users to specify arguments for new_test_ext This turned out to be surprisingly easy. On reflection, it turns out that of course the compiler can't eagerly evaluate the function call, but needs to paste it in everywhere desired. * enable explicitly specifying the path to the benchmarks invocation also enable optional trailing commas * Revert "bump impl_version" This reverts commit 0209e4de33fd43873f8cfc6875815d0fd6151e63. * list failing benchmark tests and the errors which caused the failure * harden benchmark tests against internal panics * suppress warning about ignored profiles unfortunately, setting the profile here doesn't do anything; we'd need to set it in every leaf package anyway. However, as this was just making the default explicit anyway, I think it's safe enough to remove entirely. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for assets * impl_benchmark_test_suite for balances * impl_benchmark_test_suite for bounties * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Collective * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Contracts * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Democracy * don't impl_benchmark_test_suite for Elections-Phragmen * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Identity Note that Identity tests currently fail. They failed in an identical way before this change, so as far as I'm concerned, the status quo is good enough for now. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for ImOnline * impl_benchmark_test_suite for indices For this crate also, the test suite fails identically with and without this change, so we can say that this change is not the cause of the tests' failure to compile. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for lottery * impl_benchmark_test_suite for merkle-mountain-range * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Multisig These tests fail identically with and without the change, so the change seems unlikely to be the origin of the failures. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for offences * impl_benchmark_test_suite for Proxy Fails identically with and without this change. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for scheduler * impl_benchmark_test_suite for session It turns out to be important to be able to exclude items marked `#[extra]` sometimes. Who knew? * impl_benchmark_test_suite for staking * impl_benchmark_test_suite for system * impl_benchmark_test_suite for timestamp * impl_benchmark_test_suite for tips * impl_benchmark_test_suite for treasury * impl_benchmark_test_suite for utility Note that benchmark tests fail identically before and after this change. * impl_benchmark_test_suite for vesting * fix wrong module name in impl_benchmark_test_suite in Offences * address line length nits * enable optional keyword argument: exec_name Took a _lot_ of macro-wrangling to get the functionality that I want, but now you have the option to pass in ```rust impl_benchmark_test_suite!( Elections, crate::tests::ExtBuilder::default().desired_members(13).desired_runners_up(7), crate::tests::Test, exec_name = build_and_execute, ); ``` and have it expand out properly. A selected fragment of the expansion: ```rust fn test_benchmarks() { crate::tests::ExtBuilder::default() .desired_members(13) .desired_runners_up(7) .build_and_execute(|| { ``` * get rid of dead code Co-authored-by: Guillaume Thiolliere <gui.thiolliere@gmail.com>
Treasury Module
The Treasury module provides a "pot" of funds that can be managed by stakeholders in the system and a structure for making spending proposals from this pot.
Overview
The Treasury Module itself provides the pot to store funds, and a means for stakeholders to propose, approve, and deny expenditures. The chain will need to provide a method (e.g.inflation, fees) for collecting funds.
By way of example, the Council could vote to fund the Treasury with a portion of the block reward and use the funds to pay developers.
Terminology
- Proposal: A suggestion to allocate funds from the pot to a beneficiary.
- Beneficiary: An account who will receive the funds from a proposal if the proposal is approved.
- Deposit: Funds that a proposer must lock when making a proposal. The deposit will be returned or slashed if the proposal is approved or rejected respectively.
- Pot: Unspent funds accumulated by the treasury module.
Interface
Dispatchable Functions
General spending/proposal protocol:
propose_spend- Make a spending proposal and stake the required deposit.reject_proposal- Reject a proposal, slashing the deposit.approve_proposal- Accept the proposal, returning the deposit.