handle floating promises in /inter-protocol and /vats #7760
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
Chris-Hibbert
requested changes
May 16, 2023
| @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ const scheduleLiquidationWakeups = async ( | |||
| if (TimeMath.compareAbs(now, nominalStart) > 0) { | |||
| if (TimeMath.compareAbs(now, endTime) < 0) { | |||
| if (cancelToken) { | |||
| E(timer).cancel(cancelToken); | |||
| void E(timer).cancel(cancelToken); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we don't wait, I think we should assign a new token so the old one doesn't get used to soon.
cancelToken = makeCancelToken();
| @@ -176,7 +177,7 @@ export const makeScheduler = async ( | |||
| 'Unable to start auction cleanly. skipping this auction round.', | |||
| ), | |||
| ); | |||
| finishAuctionRound(); | |||
| await finishAuctionRound(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why? finishAuctionRound() isn't async.
| @@ -188,15 +189,15 @@ export const makeScheduler = async ( | |||
| case 'before': | |||
| break; | |||
| case 'during': | |||
| advanceRound(); | |||
| await advanceRound(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nor is advanceRound().
Comment on lines
-1083
to
-1084
| // This schedule is published as a side effect of closing out the incomplete | ||
| // auction. The next one follows immediately and is correct. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also removed in another pending PR.
dckc
reviewed
May 16, 2023
Comment on lines
-492
to
+493
| myAddressNameAdmin.reserve(WalletName.depositFacet); | ||
| // This may not finish before another reserve() call, but this one will win | ||
| void myAddressNameAdmin.reserve(WalletName.depositFacet); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
makeMyAddressNameAdminKit is deprecated, yes? I'm not confident how this solo client stuff should work. I'd be inclined to have ci continue to gripe about it. Or leave an XXX or something.
dckc
reviewed
May 16, 2023
Comment on lines
-308
to
+309
| myAddressNameAdmin.reserve(WalletName.depositFacet); | ||
| // This may not finish before another reserve() call, but this one will win | ||
| void myAddressNameAdmin.reserve(WalletName.depositFacet); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, I'm not confident about this.
dckc
reviewed
May 16, 2023
| this.state.mint || Fail`minter cannot retain without a mint.`; | ||
| !!this.state.mint || Fail`minter cannot retain without a mint.`; |
Chris-Hibbert
approved these changes
May 16, 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.
refs: #6000
Description
Because we don't have the floating promise lint in CI, they creep back. The last time inter-protocol was cleared:
This clears them again. To do so it reworks a few promise handling flows. Those are in separate commits from the mechanical ones.
This is stacked upon #7752 because that changes shortfall reporting in a way that was relevant to the test changes here.
This
hasomits changes that are related to auction fixes:Security Considerations
n/a
Scaling Considerations
n/a
Documentation Considerations
n/a
Testing Considerations
Revised tests. The vaults-upgrade bootstrapTest had to shrink in scope.