Skip to content

refactor activeDReps to avoid duplication #971

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

refactor activeDReps to avoid duplication #971

wants to merge 5 commits into from
+87 −82

Conversation

@williamdemeo
Copy link
Member

@williamdemeo williamdemeo commented Oct 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

Checklist

  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
  • Any semantic changes to the specifications are documented in CHANGELOG.md
  • Code is formatted according to CONTRIBUTING.md
  • Self-reviewed the diff

@williamdemeo williamdemeo linked an issue Oct 30, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
generalize activeDReps and remove duplicate definitions #970
Open
@williamdemeo williamdemeo marked this pull request as ready for review October 30, 2025 07:31
@williamdemeo
Copy link
Member Author

williamdemeo commented Oct 30, 2025

@carlostome I replaced activeDReps definitions with primed versions in the modules used in the equivalence proofs in ExpiredDReps, but I suspect it won't be too hard to get rid of those primed versions, and the proofs might even be simpler without multiple activeDReps definitions.

@williamdemeo
Copy link
Member Author

williamdemeo commented Oct 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Rename activeDReps to sound like a function that "gets" active DReps (since it takes arguments) and it should return DReps (not just a set of credentials). Also, move the definition to Governance.

carlostome
carlostome reviewed Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
src/Ledger/Conway/Specification/Gov/Actions.lagda.md
Comment on lines +466 to +467
DRepsOf_∣_≤Expiry : {A : Type} ⦃ _ : HasDReps A ⦄ → A → Epoch → DReps
DRepsOf a ∣ e ≤Expiry = filterᵐ (λ (_ , expEpoch) → e ≤ expEpoch) (DRepsOf a)
Copy link
Collaborator

@carlostome carlostome Nov 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find confusing that the naming of this function uses a composite of names from other functions. By this I mean:

  1. DRepsOf
  2. |
  3. ≤

Copy link
Collaborator

@WhatisRT WhatisRT Nov 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about activeDRepsOf?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@WhatisRT WhatisRT WhatisRT left review comments

@carlostome carlostome carlostome left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

generalize activeDReps and remove duplicate definitions

4 participants

@williamdemeo @WhatisRT @carlostome