Update to v14 #84
Update to v14 #84
Conversation
Update to polkadot api v14
| sessionUnsub.current = unsub; | ||
| }); | ||
| const sessionValidatorsRaw: AnyApi = | ||
| await api.query.staking.validators.entries(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this should be really session validators or eras validators. Either way staking.validators is not the right storage 😅
This returns not only era's validators, but also as stated here "wannabe". I think we should use erasStakersOverview to get era's validators or session.validators to get session's validators. I'll try to figure out which one are we interested in 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused. On production session.validators is used, but I think staking.erasStakersOverview makes more sense. @Marcin-Radecki WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice! I have a few questions and there a few issues and edge cases to work out. @Marcin-Radecki will take a look tomorrow and then we can figure out what is the plan 🚀
|
|
||
| const results = await Promise.all( | ||
| unclaimedRewardsEntries.map(([era, v]) => | ||
| api.query.staking.claimedRewards<AnyApi>(era, v) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this supports only new storage key, but it would be nice to support ledger.legacyClaimedRewards as well 😅
src/workers/stakers.ts
Outdated
| @@ -67,6 +68,9 @@ const processEraForExposure = (data: AnyJson) => { | |||
| const inOthers = others.find((o: AnyJson) => o.who === who); | |||
|
|
|||
| if (inOthers) { | |||
| const index = others.findIndex((o: any) => o.who === who); | |||
| const exposedPage = Math.floor(index / Number(1024)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be better to use maxExposurePageSize if possible
| @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ const processEraForExposure = (data: AnyJson) => { | |||
| total, | |||
| share, | |||
| isValidator, | |||
| exposedPage: 0, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a bit tricky here. On one hand validator stake based payout is made on page 0. On the other hand his commission is spread across all pages. I'd leave it as it is. @Marcin-Radecki let us know what you think 🙏
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On Polkadot:
(but they probably have a bug because they start from page 1)
https://github.com/polkadot-cloud/polkadot-staking-dashboard/blob/main/packages/app/src/workers/stakers.ts#L70-L71
| if (!unclaimedPayout.isZero()) { | ||
| unclaimed[era] = { | ||
| ...unclaimed[era], | ||
| [validator]: [exposedPage, unclaimedPayout.toString()], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if exposedPage makes sense here. I think it should be an array of unclaimed pages. Now, if I'm not mistaken it's just the 0 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it’s not always 0. The value of exposedPage depends on the validator pages.
| await api.query.staking.erasStakersOverview.entries(era); | ||
|
|
||
| const validators = overview.reduce( | ||
| (prev: Record<string, Exposure>, [keys, value]: AnyApi) => { | ||
| const validator = keys.toHuman()[1]; | ||
| const { own, total } = value.toHuman(); | ||
| return { ...prev, [validator]: { own, total } }; | ||
| }, | ||
| {} | ||
| ); | ||
| const validatorKeys = Object.keys(validators); | ||
|
|
||
| const pagedResults = await Promise.all( | ||
| validatorKeys.map((v) => | ||
| api.query.staking.erasStakersPaged.entries(era, v) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is an edge case of an era in which migration happens. In that era the erasStakersOverview and erasStakersPaged will be empty - not populated with validators. In this case we should fallback to staking.erasStakers. I'm not sure if it's imperative we fix this, but until there is a decision I'd opt into fixing it @Marcin-Radecki
| api.query.staking.erasStakersOverview.entries(era).then( | ||
| (stakers) => | ||
| stakers?.map(([args, data]) => { | ||
| // @ts-expect-error TS2339: Contrary to the TS error "own" and "total" do exist | ||
| const { total, own } = data.toHuman(); | ||
| const validatorId = | ||
| (args?.toHuman() as string[] | undefined)?.[1] || ''; | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| validatorId, | ||
| ownStake: new u128(registry, rmCommas(own)), | ||
| total: new u128(registry, rmCommas(total)), | ||
| }; | ||
| }) | ||
| ), | ||
| api.query.staking.erasStakersPaged.entries(era).then((stakers) => |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as above, there is an edge case of an era in which migration happens. In that era the erasStakersOverview and erasStakersPaged will be empty - not populated with validators. In this case we should fallback to staking.erasStakers. I'm not sure if it's imperative we fix this, but until there is a decision I'd opt into fixing it @Marcin-Radecki
| payouts?.forEach(({ era, paginatedValidators }) => { | ||
| if (!paginatedValidators) { | ||
| return []; | ||
| } | ||
| return paginatedValidators.forEach(([page, v]) => | ||
| calls.push(api.tx.staking.payoutStakersByPage(v, era, page)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, but doesn't this mean we are paying out a lot of pages in one transaction? We shouldn't do it, because there is no guarantee that the batched call will fit into block.
It seems that the previous logic was paying out multiple validators as well, but when I've tested it does only one payout. Am I missing something and it's the same with this code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about the behavior. I agree that there possibility of exceeding the block. However, it's the same on polkadot:
https://github.com/polkadot-cloud/polkadot-staking-dashboard/blob/main/packages/app/src/modals/ClaimPayouts/Forms.tsx#L72
| totalPayout.isGreaterThan(0) && totalPayoutValidators > 0 | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // Ensure payouts value is valid. | ||
| useEffect( | ||
| () => setValid(totalPayout.isGreaterThan(0) && getCalls().length > 0), | ||
| () => setValid(totalPayout.isGreaterThan(0) && totalPayoutValidators > 0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What was wrong with previous condition?
Co-authored-by: Wojciech Basiura <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Wojciech Basiura <[email protected]>
Update validator list and pool nominations