fix: remove validator from tree when sending to jail

[seolaoh]

Description

Once validators have been sent to jail, they should not be sent to jail again before unjail, so changed to remove the validator from the validator tree when sending to jail.

[coderabbitai[bot]]

[!IMPORTANT]

Review Skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please add the base/target branch pattern to the list of additional branches to be reviewed in the settings.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

[!TIP]

Early Access Features

- `gpt-4o` model for chat

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

- [X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A&url=https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [Mastodon](https://mastodon.social/share?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai) - [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/submit?title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&text=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai&mini=true&title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&summary=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code)

Tips

### Chat There are 3 ways to chat with [CodeRabbit](https://coderabbit.ai): - Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example: - `I pushed a fix in commit .` - `Generate unit testing code for this file.` - `Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.` - Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag `@coderabbitai` in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples: - `@coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.` - `@coderabbitai modularize this function.` - PR comments: Tag `@coderabbitai` in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples: - `@coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.` - `@coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.` - `@coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.` - `@coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.` - `@coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.` Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. ### CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments) - `@coderabbitai pause` to pause the reviews on a PR. - `@coderabbitai resume` to resume the paused reviews. - `@coderabbitai review` to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository. - `@coderabbitai full review` to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again. - `@coderabbitai summary` to regenerate the summary of the PR. - `@coderabbitai resolve` resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments. - `@coderabbitai configuration` to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository. - `@coderabbitai help` to get help. Additionally, you can add `@coderabbitai ignore` anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed. ### CodeRabbit Configration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`) - You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a `.coderabbit.yaml` file to the root of your repository. - Please see the [configuration documentation](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/guides/configure-coderabbit) for more information. - If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: `# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json` ### Documentation and Community - Visit our [Documentation](https://coderabbit.ai/docs) for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit. - Join our [Discord Community](https://discord.com/invite/GsXnASn26c) to get help, request features, and share feedback. - Follow us on [X/Twitter](https://twitter.com/coderabbitai) for updates and announcements.

[seolaoh]

Maybe we should add insert logic in tryUnjail, if we remove the validator when it is jailed.

Yeah I also thought about it, but I thought it defeats the purpose of the function to add insert in the unjail function. How about changing the subcommand to optionally do unjail and activate at once?

[0xHansLee]

Maybe we should add insert logic in tryUnjail, if we remove the validator when it is jailed.

Yeah I also thought about it, but I thought it defeats the purpose of the function to add insert in the unjail function. How about changing the subcommand to optionally do unjail and activate at once?

I agree to separate insert and unjail because when a validator is jailed, the amount of delegation may be less than MIN_ACTIVATE_AMOUNT due to undelegation. Maybe 2 step is required to re-activate validator from unjailed status.

[sm-stack]

Yeah I also thought about it, but I thought it defeats the purpose of the function to add insert in the unjail function. How about changing the subcommand to optionally do unjail and activate at once?

Could you elaborate it? I thought that if jail makes the validator to be removed from the tree, unjail should make it inserted in the tree.

I agree to separate insert and unjail because when a validator is jailed, the amount of delegation may be less than MIN_ACTIVATE_AMOUNT due to undelegation. Maybe 2 step is required to re-activate validator from unjailed status.

I think that can be handled by checking the current status of validator, and only insert to the tree if the status is ACTIVE. I assume that may be cheaper than sending 2 transactions to unjail and activate the validator.

[seolaoh]

Yeah I also thought about it, but I thought it defeats the purpose of the function to add insert in the unjail function. How about changing the subcommand to optionally do unjail and activate at once?

Could you elaborate it? I thought that if jail makes the validator to be removed from the tree, unjail should make it inserted in the tree.

I agree to separate insert and unjail because when a validator is jailed, the amount of delegation may be less than MIN_ACTIVATE_AMOUNT due to undelegation. Maybe 2 step is required to re-activate validator from unjailed status.

I think that can be handled by checking the current status of validator, and only insert to the tree if the status is ACTIVE. I assume that may be cheaper than sending 2 transactions to unjail and activate the validator.

I thought it's weird to add insert in unjail function, but I agree with your comment. I'll add it.