graphprotocol / graphprotocol/contracts
Refactor the meaning of pool.exists()
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Solidity
- Stars
- 374
- Forks
- 176
- Avg merge
- 1d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
Could this be pool.exists()? Or, should the definition of pool.exists change? (I noticed now it's possible that a pool went through pool.init but its effective allocated state is still zero, so not sure how to interpret it or what's the best way to account for it)
Originally posted by @pcarranzav in https://github.com/graphprotocol/contracts/pull/549#discussion_r908606458
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the discussion in pull request 549 and trace how pool.init and pool.exists are defined and used. Clarify whether existence means initialization or a nonzero effective allocation, then document the decision and update the related contract behavior and tests so the chosen meaning is consistent.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- solidity
- Domain
- blockchain
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100