[WIP] Add function to batch votings #20
Closed
bumi wants to merge 1 commits from
features/batch-voting into master
pull from: features/batch-voting
merge into: :master
:master
:new-final-deploy
:new-final-deploy-2
:reimbursement-export
:staging
:legacy
:addresses/rsk-testnet-raucao-1
:ipfs-defaults
:deletemewhendone
:feature/184-improve_withdrawal
:tests/contracts-contribution
:tests/contracts-kit
:kit/add-vault-app
:feature/ipfs_hash_in_add_response
:chore/bootstrap-on-travis
:chore/remove-direct-aragon-cli-dependency
:chore/update-dependencies-1
:fix/ipfs-config
:apm-hack
:wtf/package-lock
:feature/contributor-balance
:feature/constructor-options
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
good first issue
ipfs
rsk
scaling
bug
dev environment
docs
duplicate
enhancement
feature
idea
invalid
kredits-1
kredits-2
kredits-3
question
security
ui/ux
wontfix
Good for newcomers
Something is not working
Config, builds, CI, deployment, etc.
Documentation
This issue or pull request already exists
Improving existing functionality
New functionality
Something to consider
Not a bug
Small contribution
Medium contribution
Large contribution
Looking for an answer
release
major
release
minor
release
patch
All your base are belong to us
User interface, process design, etc.
This won't be fixed
No labels
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No projects
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: kredits/contracts#20
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
The batchVote function accepts an array of proposal ids and votes for
every one.
Normally arrays without fix length are problematic and gas usage can not be
estimated really well. So we need to see how that works or what other
pattern could be used.
lgtm 👍
generally we need to keep an eye on the fees as those will ne n times vote(). and maybe n proposals will be executed (also see #10 for discussion)
That would be an acceptable scenario, as one would have to pay the same fee for all seperate vote transactions in this case.
Pull request closed