Fix "max per sponsee" conditions #55
Conversation
aguillon
commented
Mar 12, 2024
•
aguillon
commented
- Wif notebook to test
- Breaks the front-end, but I won't address that
- No migrations because they are fucked at the moment
users can send, after the condition has been created.
| MAX_CALLS_PER_ENTRYPOINT = "MAX_CALLS_PER_ENTRYPOINT" | ||
| # Max number of calls per sponsee per contract |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So it's not the same business rule which is mentionned in the PR #45 , right ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes it is, but apparently I can't get the wording right. :)
The goal is to limit the subsidy for new users, for the smart contract targeted by the condition. So we want users to be able to submit N operations to this smart contract, but not more. But this should not impact other users, including newer accounts.
I suppose that it could be "max number of calls per sponsee per vault" instead?
| @@ -163,7 +157,7 @@ class Condition(Base): | |||
| created_at = Column( | |||
| DateTime(timezone=True), default=datetime.datetime.utcnow(), nullable=False | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| is_active = Column(Boolean, nullable=False) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you can activate or not a condition ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea is that conditions may expire for whatever reason, and should not be taken into account later on.
| @@ -329,17 +329,18 @@ def create_max_calls_per_sponsee_condition( | |||
| db_condition = models.Condition( | |||
| **{ | |||
| "type": schemas.ConditionType.MAX_CALLS_PER_SPONSEE, | |||
| "sponsee_address": condition.sponsee_address, | |||
| "contract_id": condition.contract_id, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why you can't write a migration script ?
If you have a database with the last version of model you can write a migration file and execute it I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's more of a "I won't bother for now" thing.
|
Very cool with the notebook :) |
|
Allez pouf |
