fix: withdraw slashed staking tx #51
Merged
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
jrwbabylonlab
force-pushed
the
add-withdraw-slashing-tx
branch
from
a80e993 to
3433c46
Compare
gbarkhatov
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
vitsalis
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
KonradStaniec
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR introduces a new method, createWithdrawSlashedStakingTransaction, which is used to withdraw outputs from the slashing path. The method supports slashing transactions originating from either the timelock or unbonding path.
The functionality is similar to the existing withdrawEarlyUnbondedTransaction method, with one key difference: for withdrawing a slashing transaction, the output index must be specified.
While it’s possible to make the existing withdrawEarlyUnbondedTransaction method more generic to handle slashing transactions, this is a core part of the BBN staking logic. In this case, the code duplication is preferable to the added complexity that would come with mixing usage across different staking flow paths.
NOTE:
withdrawSlashingTransaction) but not added forcreateWithdrawSlashedStakingTransaction. A seperate PR will add the missing coverage later on. This is due to time concern for it to be manual tested on env.