R4R: Validator Power Dec-> Int

[rigelrozanski]

Ref #2513
Closes #2327

• Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Wrote tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)
• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #
• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2958 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 82%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #2958      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    54.82%   54.8%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          133     133              
  Lines         9552    9545       -7     
==========================================
- Hits          5237    5231       -6     
+ Misses        3994    3993       -1     
  Partials       321     321

[cwgoes]

Hmm, as far as I can see this doesn't address the key point in #2513, which is dealing with the case when power (as a big.Int) exceeds int64 bounds. Is it intended to?

[rigelrozanski]

@cwgoes - thanks for explaining #2513, yeah this PR doesn't resolve that issue, but I reckon will make solving this issue a bit smoother. I've changed the description header to REF for #2513, and added closes to #2327 (which was the intended issue)

[rigelrozanski]

Remaining task before merge:

• all places where fractional atoms are burned or moved should be outlined in the docs!

[cwgoes]

All the tests seem to fail, is there a known issue or an unknown issue?

[alexanderbez]

Left two minor comments, but otherwise the changes LGTM.

[rigelrozanski]

@cwgoes I made a small oopsie - all fixed

[alexanderbez]

LGTM ☕️

[cwgoes]

Tested ACK - although @rigelrozanski did you get to make the docs updates you wanted to?

[cwgoes]

Also needs a rebase since the changes for the gaia-9002 fix PR.

[cwgoes]

@rigelrozanski If you have a chance to rebase this I think we can merge it - pending my question about docs updates.

[rigelrozanski]

K yeah I will rebase soon probably this weekend - may add a doc section describing the nuances involved with distribution shares - however no trimmings are actually burned anymore, just shifted to the last delegator within a validator.

[alexanderbez]

@rigelrozanski any updates here? Looks like this is ready to be merged pending a rebase?

[rigelrozanski]

ready to be merged! so long as no CI fails unexpectedly here

[cwgoes]

IMO we need better justification for the defensive mins / maxes - I'd rather figure out what specific sort of rounding or truncation is leading to their requirement, then fix that.