Currently the naming method for fileName is unique, but has a disadvantage it the proposer has multiple proposals open and is using the same title naming sequence (>=20 chars) for the proposals. The unique part is then only made of the timestamp suffix (when the voter has committed his vote) which can be in different order than the initiated proposals creation date. This can lead to confusion for voters in the revealing phase of the proposals.
Two suggestions ( preferred):
1) Include part of unique proposalId into fileName
2) Don't allow proposers to use the same title sequence in proposal range (0,20) as existing proposals.
Feature
What is the feature?
Currently the naming method for fileName is unique, but has a disadvantage it the proposer has multiple proposals open and is using the same title naming sequence (>=20 chars) for the proposals. The unique part is then only made of the timestamp suffix (when the voter has committed his vote) which can be in different order than the initiated proposals creation date. This can lead to confusion for voters in the revealing phase of the proposals.
Examples:
https://community.digix.global/#/proposals/0xe5ad839313a886a728e0d3c703124f2ead82f36418fdffb559f7a994e726d52e
https://community.digix.global/#/proposals/0x6132ce5ade3243542527686e656096e4cc8c7b34b29bad90daaee762a71b91e2
https://community.digix.global/#/proposals/0x8ac76d37a6da3de212bf687e1bb39661fde10e46252b69241dfef266ce4f4a25
https://community.digix.global/#/proposals/0x6529209a2951d2a9f6272f6ea59ca7dcbfb98546bda6cf7d79850d49d7484a14
How can it be done?
Two suggestions ( preferred): 1) Include part of unique
proposalIdintofileName2) Don't allow proposers to use the same title sequence in proposal range (0,20) as existing proposals.Other Comments