-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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.
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
Update doc and natspec #345
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just one thing, else LGTM!
Co-authored-by: Merlin Egalite <44097430+MerlinEgalite@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Jean-Grimal <83286814+Jean-Grimal@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Romain Milon <rmilon@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jean-Grimal <83286814+Jean-Grimal@users.noreply.github.com>
/// @notice Submits a forced market removal from the vault, potentially losing all funds supplied to the market. | ||
/// @dev Warning: Submitting a forced removal will overwrite the timestamp at which the market will be removable. | ||
/// @notice Submits a forced market removal from the vault, eventually losing all funds supplied to the market. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would not change potentially
into eventually
, the funds will not necessarily be lost if the timelock is reached and the market effectively removed: funds could possibly be recovered later with a reallocate if the market allows it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will be addressed in #354 pls don't change this PR let's merge it
Looks good |
Fixes :