stake-pool: Make activating / deactivating check stricter #4002
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
2501babe
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2023
HaoranYi
pushed a commit
to HaoranYi/solana-program-library
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Problem
With #3987, we added a check to make sure that the existing transient stake was "going in the right direction", ie. that it's activating during "increase additional" and "redelegate", and that it's deactivating during "decrease additional". The existing check is oversimplified, and only checks that it's activating OR active / deactivating OR inactive.
Solution
Make the check a bit more strict, to make sure that it's activating in that epoch. This is a pedantic change, since it's typically impossible to "increase additional" / "redelegate" with transient stakes that are active or inactive, unless there's an explicit ask to not merge transient accounts while updating. Either way, the runtime would catch that.