Add hooks to governance actions by sunnya97 · Pull Request #9133 · cosmos/cosmos-sdk

sunnya97 · 2021-04-16T19:13:04Z

Description

closes: #9105

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
Code follows the module structure standards.
Wrote unit and integration tests
Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
Added relevant godoc comments.
Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

codecov · 2021-04-17T16:59:03Z

Codecov Report

Merging #9133 (24e5109) into master (603e895) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 73.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9133      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   58.82%   58.89%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         583      585       +2     
  Lines       32769    32798      +29     
==========================================
+ Hits        19275    19315      +40     
+ Misses      11216    11199      -17     
- Partials     2278     2284       +6

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
x/gov/types/hooks.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
x/gov/keeper/keeper.go	`73.46% <50.00%> (+22.35%)`	⬆️
simapp/app.go	`83.09% <100.00%> (+0.33%)`	⬆️
x/gov/abci.go	`89.23% <100.00%> (+0.34%)`	⬆️
x/gov/keeper/deposit.go	`70.58% <100.00%> (+1.54%)`	⬆️
x/gov/keeper/hooks.go	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
x/gov/keeper/proposal.go	`78.64% <100.00%> (+5.11%)`	⬆️
x/gov/keeper/vote.go	`89.28% <100.00%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
... and 4 more

x/gov/types/expected_keepers.go

tac0turtle

LGTM, could we get changes to the spec as well?

amaury1093 · 2021-04-19T11:22:43Z

x/gov/types/expected_keepers.go

+	AfterProposalSubmission(ctx sdk.Context, proposalID uint64)                            // Must be called after proposal is submitted
+	AfterProposalDeposit(ctx sdk.Context, proposalID uint64, depositorAddr sdk.AccAddress) // Must be called after a deposit is made
+	AfterProposalVote(ctx sdk.Context, proposalID uint64, voterAddr sdk.AccAddress)        // Must be called after a vote on a proposal is cast
+	AfterProposalInactive(ctx sdk.Context, proposalID uint64)                              // Must be called when proposal become inactive
+	AfterProposalActive(ctx sdk.Context, proposalID uint64)                                // Must be called when proposal become active


I would propose to put the struct as 2nd argument everywhere:

AfterProposalVote(ctx sdk.Context, vote Vote) AfterProposalActive(ctx sdk.Context, proposal Proposal)

etc, so that users can access all fields if needed.

Currently, the hooks in the staking module don't pass around the full structs, and only pass the minimal information needed such that the recipient can query the staking module for more information if desired.

For example, in the new delegation hook, it just passes the validator address and delegator address. The recipient can then use stakingKeeper.GetDelegation(valAddr, delAddr) to get the delegation struct.

I was trying to keep the same standard for these as well, but I'm not sure the pros/cons of doing this vs the entire struct (in which case, we should switch it for staking hooks as well imo).

aaronc · 2021-04-20T16:56:32Z

This generally seems reasonable. I am a bit concerned about merging another feature into master when we are this closing to cutting a 0.43 beta. But maybe it is okay... It seems like this isn't really state breaking unless someone actually registers hooks, correct?

In future releases, I am wanting to think towards a more standardized way of specifying hooks as I outlined here: #7459 (comment). I am thinking this will also be relevant for #9066.

One alternate approach I would like to consider for the functionality in this PR is adding event listeners for typed events to BaseApp. In reviewing this PR I notice that there is an event emitted every time one of these hooks is called basically containing the same info as the event. What would it look like to migrate x/gov to typed events (#7474) and then have event listeners in BaseApp that get run during DeliverTx but after Msgs are processed?

sunnya97 · 2021-04-20T19:13:38Z

@aaronc Yeah, this shouldn't be state breaking unless someone uses the available hooks.

Ideally, getting this into v0.43 if possible would be great, because we need this feature for Osmosis, and would like to just use x/gov from the cosmos-sdk instead of needing to fork it if possible.

It seems that ADR 33 left what to do about hooks as a future TODO.

For now, I'd prefer to get this PR in just asap to expose the functionality, following the same hooks model as x/staking. And then we can figure out a new model of hooks for a future version as that will require a much longer process with a proper ADR, and upgrade these hooks along with the staking ones at that time.

aaronc · 2021-04-20T21:15:35Z

For now, I'd prefer to get this PR in just asap to expose the functionality, following the same hooks model as x/staking. And then we can figure out a new model of hooks for a future version as that will require a much longer process with a proper ADR, and upgrade these hooks along with the staking ones at that time.

That's fine. Shouldn't we add some tests here?

sunnya97 · 2021-04-21T02:02:57Z

@aaronc, Added some tests! 👍

fedekunze

LGTM

x/gov/keeper/keeper.go

fedekunze · 2021-04-21T12:20:03Z

x/gov/keeper/hooks_test.go

+	h.AfterProposalVotingPeriodEndedValid = true
+}
+
+func TestHooks(t *testing.T) {


I wonder if we have a testing suite for this instead?

fedekunze · 2021-04-21T12:21:50Z

x/gov/keeper/internal_test.go

+
+import "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/gov/types"
+
+func UpdateHooks(k *Keeper, h types.GovHooks) *Keeper {


can you define this on the other test file instead?

No, so the reason it's like this is that the hooks field in the keeper is unexposed, so it can only be accessed by the keeper package, not the keeper_test package.

And we don't want to add this function to the keeper.go file because that then it would be available to all other modules, which isn't what we want. The trick is to put it in a file with the _test suffix but still in the keeper package, so it's only built during tests and thus accessible to other tests, but not other modules.

See: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24622388/how-to-test-a-unexported-private-function-in-go-golang

makes sense! thanks for the clarification

barriebyron · 2022-05-09T12:53:02Z

LGTM, could we get changes to the spec as well?

I was just looking for the doc updates today!

* add governance hooks * fix lint * fix lint * CHANGELOG * sh -> gh * improve comments * add test * add more tests * rename two of the hooks Co-authored-by: ahmedaly113 <ahmedaly113@outlook.com>

sunnya97 added the C:x/gov label Apr 16, 2021

sunnya97 requested review from aaronc, alessio and alexanderbez as code owners April 16, 2021 19:13

sunnya97 requested review from amaury1093, clevinson, robert-zaremba and tac0turtle April 16, 2021 19:31

sunnya97 force-pushed the sikka/governance-hooks branch from 40ddefd to d99861a Compare April 17, 2021 17:24

fedekunze reviewed Apr 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

x/gov/types/expected_keepers.go Show resolved Hide resolved

tac0turtle approved these changes Apr 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

amaury1093 reviewed Apr 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

ahmedaly113 and others added 9 commits April 20, 2021 21:54

add governance hooks

4293ed7

fix lint

8abc251

fix lint

bd1279a

CHANGELOG

f72c814

sh -> gh

a5e60d7

improve comments

67538db

add test

cb066d2

add more tests

7e77ac1

rename two of the hooks

1d1530d

sunnya97 force-pushed the sikka/governance-hooks branch from 5b8eb0b to 1d1530d Compare April 21, 2021 02:01

fedekunze approved these changes Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

fedekunze reviewed Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into sikka/governance-hooks

24e5109

sunnya97 merged commit bffcae5 into master Apr 21, 2021

sunnya97 deleted the sikka/governance-hooks branch April 21, 2021 16:59


		import "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/gov/types"

		func UpdateHooks(k Keeper, h types.GovHooks) Keeper {

Conversation

sunnya97 commented Apr 16, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 17, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tac0turtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

amaury1093 Apr 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sunnya97 Apr 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aaronc commented Apr 20, 2021

Uh oh!

sunnya97 commented Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aaronc commented Apr 20, 2021

Uh oh!

sunnya97 commented Apr 21, 2021

Uh oh!

fedekunze left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fedekunze Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sunnya97 Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fedekunze Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sunnya97 Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fedekunze Apr 22, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

barriebyron commented May 9, 2022

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

sunnya97 commented Apr 16, 2021 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

sunnya97 commented Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading