Add Support for CIP-179 Polls#4152
Conversation
|
@mesudip Can you review this PR? |
|
I am trying to build the project, The docker image build of backend fails. Docker build log |
|
@Cerkoryn , I managed to get the build working with some modification, and it is deployed. Can you verify that this is how you wanted to implement the feature?
cc: @bosko-m |
PR AssessmentThe PR is not ready for merging in current state. CIP / behaviorThis is not full CIP-0179 compliance. Main issues:
Overall: the PR introduces the shape of the feature, but not a compliant or reliable implementation. Code / implementationThere are also concrete implementation problems:
|
|
@mesudip I greatly appreciate your help. I had a lot of difficulties trying to get all the dependencies to run to build and test GovTool locally with this feature, so I'm not surprised that I missed a bunch of things. Sincerest apologies for that 🙏 I will take a look at that preview page you set up (which is enormously helpful BTW) as soon as I am able to, which is likely after spring break. Then I will address each of those errors and submit an update to this PR so that we can get it implemented in a clean and robust way. |
List of changes
Checklist
Have been having quite a bit of trouble building and running GovTools locally, so I can't validate any of the items on the checklist. I'm hoping that another contributor who can build it might be able to help me out with these changes enough to get it running on one of the testnets at least? If we can get it to that point that I am happy to iterate on it further myself 😅
Right now I was able to verify a basic PoC on the frontend by stitching together various parts, but it's ugly and deviates from the intended development flow. This PR itself should be clean though, I just can't verify it easily 😰