lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens #4713

pysel · 2023-03-23T13:39:53Z

Closes: #382

What is the purpose of the change

Adds a tx to allow users rebond an unbonding lock

There are 2 scenarios:

Will create a new non-unbonding lock if the amount of coins is not nil and not equal to the amount of coins in the lock. The rebonded tokens will be subtracted from the original lock, otherwise it will be unchanged
If the amount of tokens specified is nil or equal to the amount of coins in that lock, that means we will simply change the original lock's status from unlocking to non-unlocking (by setting the endTime to time.Time{})

Checklist

proto
logic
cli

Brief Changelog

osmosisd tx lockup rebond-tokens [ID]

Testing and Verifying

Unit test added

Documentation and Release Note

added to CHANGELOG.md

pysel · 2023-03-24T04:14:51Z

Questions to reviewers:

~~should we backport this to v15?~~
wdyt about changing the name to relock-tokens?

x/lockup/client/cli/tx.go

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

go.mod

x/lockup/types/hooks.go

x/lockup/types/msgs.go

p0mvn · 2023-03-26T04:55:46Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

+func (k Keeper) RebondTokens(ctx sdk.Context, lockID uint64, owner sdk.AccAddress, coins sdk.Coins) error {
+	lock, err := k.GetLockByID(ctx, lockID)
+	if err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
+
+	if lock.Owner != owner.String() {
+		return fmt.Errorf("lock %d is not owned by %s", lockID, owner)
+	}
+
+	if !lock.IsUnlocking() {
+		return fmt.Errorf("lock %d is not unlocking, rebonding only possible in unlocking stage", lockID)
+	}
+
+	// If all checks pass, we can rebond the tokens
+	err = k.rebondTokens(ctx, owner, *lock, coins)
+	if err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
+
+	return nil
+}


What is the reason for having 2 methods? I think we only need one unexported method

was following the convention of this example. Also, it made sense to me to separate the function that asserts the provided parameters are valid from the function that actually executes the rebonding logic. wdyt, should we do it in one function?

I personally think that these can be grouped into one since we would not have further instances where we would have to call rebondTokens separately

mattverse

Nice! Thanks for this PR, left some comments, please take a look!

x/lockup/client/cli/tx.go

proto/osmosis/lockup/tx.proto

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

mattverse · 2023-04-10T13:41:23Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

+func (k Keeper) RebondTokens(ctx sdk.Context, lockID uint64, owner sdk.AccAddress, coins sdk.Coins) error {
+	lock, err := k.GetLockByID(ctx, lockID)
+	if err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
+
+	if lock.Owner != owner.String() {
+		return fmt.Errorf("lock %d is not owned by %s", lockID, owner)
+	}
+
+	if !lock.IsUnlocking() {
+		return fmt.Errorf("lock %d is not unlocking, rebonding only possible in unlocking stage", lockID)
+	}
+
+	// If all checks pass, we can rebond the tokens
+	err = k.rebondTokens(ctx, owner, *lock, coins)
+	if err != nil {
+		return err
+	}
+
+	return nil
+}


I personally think that these can be grouped into one since we would not have further instances where we would have to call rebondTokens separately

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

mattverse · 2023-04-10T14:02:13Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

+		}
+
+		// Remove original lock's refs from state
+		err = k.deleteLockRefs(ctx, types.KeyPrefixUnlocking, lock)


Question: Do we not need to use the following?

Suggested change

err = k.deleteLockRefs(ctx, types.KeyPrefixUnlocking, lock)

err = k.deleteLockRefs(ctx, unlockingPrefix(lock.IsUnlocking()), lock)

not really, because we are already assured at this point that the lock is unlocking, but we can still add that, but currently there will be no purpose to that

x/lockup/keeper/lock_test.go

github-actions · 2023-05-04T00:02:10Z

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you!

czarcas7ic · 2023-05-07T02:01:44Z

I'm pretty sure this can't be backported as it is not state compatible

x/lockup/client/cli/flags.go

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

nicolaslara

This looks good to me. I think we need tests for the splitting locks case (added a comment about it in the code). Once those are in I'm happy to merge it

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

x/lockup/types/msgs_test.go

czarcas7ic

Nice work! @AlpinYukseloglu is going to give a final blessing on this later but looks good for merge to me!

AlpinYukseloglu

Thanks for this PR! I reviewed the changes quite thoroughly and the logic looks sound, but given how this PR touches critical parts of our codebase and seems quite sparsely tested, we've opted to push this to v21.

I've included a list of the classes of tests that I believe are important to include in code comments. I was originally going to commit these directly to the PR, but the scope was large enough to the point where this was blocking v20 release, so we opted to simply include the list here and aim to get this change in for v21.

AlpinYukseloglu · 2023-10-12T03:33:24Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock_test.go

+
+			// a sanity check to make sure the lock is in the correct state
+			if tc.unlock {
+				suite.Require().True(initialLock.IsUnlocking())


Would you be able to add an additional set of test cases (or extend these ones by adding a new test field for time elapsed) that covers cases where time has elapsed since the lock started unlocking? Specifically, it is important we test behavior around when:

the lock is partially finished unlocking (should function same as current tests)

the lock is exactly finished unlocking (should not allow rebonding, as it should no longer be unlocking)

the lock is past the unlocking period (should fail in all cases)

It would also be great to have cases covering behavior where BeginUnlock is run on part (not all) of lockedCoins, as this triggers a different logic branch that uses SplitLock that is currently untested.

Finally, we should also have test cases that include the creation of other locks and assert that they are unchanged.

hey @AlpinYukseloglu! Those are great points, thank you for your review!

Note: I changed the logic of tests to make it as readable as possible. Now, in a test case struct I include so called setupFunctions that are being ran prior to testing. These include: creation of initial lock, unlocking the lock, creating synthetic lockup, etc.

I addressed your comments in latest commits, here is a breakdown of everything for an easier review process:

Partially finished unlocking lock

Exactly finished unlocking lock

Past unlocking period

BeginUnlock on some fraction of locked coins

Assertion that other locks are unchanged

Though, I have one concern about exactly unlocked lock (2). (2) works because I run EndBlocker in the test prior to rebonding a lock. Because of that, it automatically removes the lock if the current block time is exactly the endTime of a lock (matured).

However, in real scenario, when transactions of a block with block time equal to endTime of an unlocking lock are being executed, if someone tries to rebond this lock, they will be able to do so, since it was not yet removed from the store. I am a little confused as to why in case (2), we should fail? Since unlocking of maturing locks happens in EndBlocker, I do not see the reason for forbidding case (2) from passing

tagging for re-review of the new test

cc: @mattverse @p0mvn

Adding on case (2): basically, the test works right now by simulating an unreal scenario - by calling endBlocker and then running rebonding logic both with the same blocktime is essentially equivalent to a scenario, when two consecutive blocks have the same block time

I think case 2 correct way would be being able to rebond if endblocker has not been called yet

pysel · 2023-10-13T19:45:45Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock_test.go

+	defaultDuration := time.Second
+
+	// autoUnlockingStartHeight is a height at which EndBlocker starts automatically unlocking matured locks
+	autoUnlockingStartHeight := int64(7)


note: auto withdrawing of tokens does not begin prior to height 7

pysel · 2023-10-13T19:47:18Z

x/lockup/keeper/lock_test.go

+			suite.Require().NoError(err)
+
+			// calling end blocker to automatically remove matured locks (no-op if setup functions did not modify blocktime)
+			lockup.EndBlocker(suite.Ctx, *suite.App.LockupKeeper)


note: this is needed for test cases that assert rebonding of unlocking lock at some stage of it's unlocking period (ex: half of unlocking time has elapsed, exactly the unlocking time has elapsed, unlocking time has elapsed in the past)

github-actions · 2023-10-31T00:02:19Z

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you!

pysel · 2023-10-31T00:06:21Z

keeping alive

ValarDragon · 2023-11-06T16:15:19Z

Thank you so much for the huge amount of work that went into this 🙏 , really appreciate it.

Unfortunately don't think it makes sense to merge given that its a breaking change that will likely be unused, and its better to have less code to maintain. Really sorry, this should have been cut off much earlier.

Would still love to give you a bounty for the work on this

pysel · 2023-11-06T19:04:35Z

hey @ValarDragon ! Thank you for letting me know, it is totally fine and I understand it! I will reach out to your @osmosis.team email, and thank you again!

github-actions bot added C:x/lockup C:x/superfluid labels Mar 23, 2023

pysel added V:state/compatible/backport State machine compatible PR, should be backported A:backport/v15.x backport patches to v15.x branch labels Mar 23, 2023

github-actions bot added the C:CLI label Mar 24, 2023

pysel marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2023 14:12

pysel changed the title ~~lockup: allow rebonding of unbonding tokens~~ lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens Mar 25, 2023

pysel requested a review from ValarDragon March 25, 2023 14:19

pysel commented Mar 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/client/cli/tx.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pysel commented Mar 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pysel commented Mar 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

go.mod Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

p0mvn reviewed Mar 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot removed the C:x/superfluid label Mar 26, 2023

p0mvn requested a review from czarcas7ic March 27, 2023 14:50

pysel requested a review from p0mvn March 31, 2023 03:05

mattverse reviewed Apr 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

pysel requested a review from stackman27 as a code owner April 11, 2023 01:55

mattverse self-assigned this Apr 19, 2023

github-actions bot added the Stale label May 4, 2023

github-actions bot removed the Stale label May 8, 2023

pysel mentioned this pull request May 10, 2023

Allow "rebonding" during "unbonding" period #382

Closed

p0mvn requested review from nicolaslara and mattverse May 10, 2023 04:45

nicolaslara reviewed May 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/client/cli/flags.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nicolaslara reviewed May 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nicolaslara requested changes May 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

nicolaslara approved these changes May 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

pysel and others added 3 commits October 5, 2023 10:43

remove unneeded doc

ebf4701

Merge branch 'main' into ruslan/rebonding-when-unbonding

5c8c447

fix go mod

4b1887f

czarcas7ic reviewed Oct 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/keeper/lock.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

czarcas7ic reviewed Oct 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

x/lockup/types/msgs_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

czarcas7ic approved these changes Oct 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

czarcas7ic and others added 4 commits October 9, 2023 15:04

Update x/lockup/keeper/lock.go

141ab8b

Update x/lockup/types/msgs_test.go

bd7ce15

Merge branch 'main' into ruslan/rebonding-when-unbonding

1a93e64

tidy after merge

4f185de

github-actions bot removed the C:x/epochs label Oct 10, 2023

Fix CLI

8a71c81

AlpinYukseloglu reviewed Oct 12, 2023

View reviewed changes

pysel and others added 3 commits October 13, 2023 10:14

Merge branch 'main' into ruslan/rebonding-when-unbonding

458167f

Generated protofile changes

fa5559b

post merge clearup

6b193ba

github-actions bot added the C:x/epochs label Oct 13, 2023

pysel added 4 commits October 13, 2023 11:20

improve test and add review reqs

85efccc

partial unlocking + noise locks

bcafe70

remove unneeded test case

2736f8e

add docs

fb705a3

pysel commented Oct 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the Stale label Oct 31, 2023

pysel removed the Stale label Oct 31, 2023

ValarDragon closed this Nov 6, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens #4713

lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens #4713

pysel commented Mar 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pysel commented Mar 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

p0mvn Mar 26, 2023

pysel Mar 26, 2023

mattverse Apr 10, 2023

mattverse left a comment

mattverse Apr 10, 2023

mattverse Apr 10, 2023

pysel Apr 14, 2023

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2023

czarcas7ic commented May 7, 2023

nicolaslara left a comment

czarcas7ic left a comment

AlpinYukseloglu left a comment

AlpinYukseloglu Oct 12, 2023

pysel Oct 13, 2023

pysel Oct 13, 2023

pysel Oct 13, 2023

mattverse Oct 16, 2023

pysel Oct 13, 2023

pysel Oct 13, 2023

github-actions bot commented Oct 31, 2023

pysel commented Oct 31, 2023

ValarDragon commented Nov 6, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pysel commented Nov 6, 2023

	err = k.deleteLockRefs(ctx, types.KeyPrefixUnlocking, lock)
	err = k.deleteLockRefs(ctx, unlockingPrefix(lock.IsUnlocking()), lock)

lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens #4713

lockup: Allow rebonding of unbonding tokens #4713

Conversation

pysel commented Mar 23, 2023 • edited Loading

What is the purpose of the change

Checklist

Brief Changelog

Testing and Verifying

Documentation and Release Note

pysel commented Mar 24, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mattverse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2023

czarcas7ic commented May 7, 2023

nicolaslara left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

czarcas7ic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlpinYukseloglu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Oct 31, 2023

pysel commented Oct 31, 2023

ValarDragon commented Nov 6, 2023 • edited Loading

pysel commented Nov 6, 2023

pysel commented Mar 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pysel commented Mar 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ValarDragon commented Nov 6, 2023 •

edited

Loading