Add conway query gov-action-status command by disassembler · Pull Request #1401 · IntersectMBO/cardano-cli

disassembler · 2026-07-28T20:22:47Z

Implements cardano-cli conway query gov-action-status --gov-action-id <id> which queries a live node and displays ratification stage, expiry epoch, DRep vote ratio (stake-weighted, mirroring ledger logic), CC vote ratio (with resignation accounting via JSON introspection), and SPO vote counts.

Example output:

Governance action: gov_action1mr0qdz2jmagvsch6r08fhqvq6vu8jakt4c8m9s7ea7z0p740vntqqqqpqyz47
Action type:       TreasuryWithdrawals
Proposed in:       Epoch 639
Expires after:     Epoch 645
Current epoch:     646
Ratify stage:      RATIFIED (pending enactment at epoch end)

=== DRep Votes ===
  Threshold: 67.00%
  YES:       2658457575.26 ADA
  Total:     3449660735.39 ADA (excl. abstain + inactive)
  Ratio:     77.06%
  Status:    PASSING

=== CC Votes ===
  Threshold:      66.67%
  Total in state: 8 (1 resigned, 0 expired)
  Active:         7 (excl. resigned)
  YES votes:      6
  NO votes:       0
  Abstain votes:  0
  Ratio:          85.71%
  Status:         PASSING

=== SPO Votes ===
  Not applicable for TreasuryWithdrawals

Context

Additional context for the PR goes here. If the PR fixes a particular issue please provide a link to the issue.

How to trust this PR

Highlight important bits of the PR that will make the review faster. If there are commands the reviewer can run to observe the new behavior, describe them.

Checklist

Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
New tests are added if needed and existing tests are updated. See Running tests for more details
Self-reviewed the diff
Changelog fragment added in .changes/

Implements `cardano-cli conway query gov-action-status --gov-action-id <id>` which queries a live node and displays ratification stage, expiry epoch, DRep vote ratio (stake-weighted, mirroring ledger logic), CC vote ratio (with resignation accounting via JSON introspection), and SPO vote counts.

carbolymer

I suppose the feature could be useful 👍🏻 But the code needs more work.

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:10:30Z

  | QueryBackwardCompatibleError
      !Text
      !SomeException
+  | QueryCmdGovActionNotFound !L.GovActionId


This is not used anywhere.

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:11:05Z

+    then putStrLn   "Ratify stage:      RATIFIED (pending enactment at epoch end)"
+    else if isExpired
+      then putStrLn $ "Ratify stage:      EXPIRED (expired " <> show (curEpochN - expiresAfterN) <> " epoch(s) ago)"
+      else putStrLn   "Ratify stage:      Active (not yet ratified)"


rendering of the output should be separate from the computation.

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:11:55Z

+    Nothing -> do
+      liftIO $ putStrLn $ "Governance action not found in current proposals: " <> bech32Id
+      liftIO $ putStrLn "(Action may have been enacted or expired and removed from the ledger state.)"
+      exitSuccess


well this is definitely not a success. a different error code should be used.

Error messages go to stderr

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:13:45Z

+showAda (L.Coin lovelace) =
+  let ada = lovelace `div` 1_000_000
+      frac = lovelace `mod` 1_000_000
+  in show ada <> if frac == 0 then "" else "." <> take 2 (show frac)


First of all this is unaware of the locale, so it assumes one arbitrary formatting. Secondly, this should be implemented as a newtype wrapper + Pretty instance e.g. newtype DecimalFormat foo

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:13:50Z

+      whole = pct `div` 100
+      frac  = pct `mod` 100
+      pad2 n = if n < 10 then "0" <> show n else show n
+  in show whole <> "." <> pad2 frac <> "%"


same as above

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T12:14:36Z

+    else if isExpired
+      then putStrLn $ "Ratify stage:      EXPIRED (expired " <> show (curEpochN - expiresAfterN) <> " epoch(s) ago)"
+      else putStrLn   "Ratify stage:      Active (not yet ratified)"
+  putStrLn ""


It should support different output formats e.g. json / yaml similarly to other commands.

carbolymer

Three correctness observations on the vote-ratio logic, verified against the ledger's ratification code (Cardano.Ledger.Conway.Rules.Ratify / Governance.Internal). The DRep AlwaysAbstain/AlwaysNoConfidence/expiry handling in calcDRepRatio itself matches the ledger's dRepAcceptedRatio - the issues below are in the threshold selection and the CC denominator.

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T13:49:44Z

+spoRequired :: String -> Bool
+spoRequired = \case
+  "NoConfidence"       -> True
+  "HardForkInitiation" -> True
+  "UpdateCommittee"    -> True
+  _                    -> False
+
+drepThresholdFor :: String -> L.DRepVotingThresholds -> Maybe Double
+drepThresholdFor tag L.DRepVotingThresholds{..} = fmap (fromRational . L.unboundRational) $ case tag of
+  "TreasuryWithdrawals" -> Just dvtTreasuryWithdrawal
+  "HardForkInitiation"  -> Just dvtHardForkInitiation
+  "NoConfidence"        -> Just dvtMotionNoConfidence
+  "UpdateCommittee"     -> Just dvtCommitteeNormal
+  "NewConstitution"     -> Just dvtUpdateToConstitution
+  "ParameterChange"     -> Just dvtPPGovGroup
+  "InfoAction"          -> Nothing
+  _                     -> Nothing


ParameterChange thresholds diverge from ledger ratification logic.

drepThresholdFor "ParameterChange" = Just dvtPPGovGroup hardcodes a single group, but the ledger (votingDRepThresholdInternal in Cardano.Ledger.Conway.Governance.Internal) computes the threshold as the maximum over all PParam groups the proposal actually touches (Network / Economic / Technical / Gov). A proposal changing, say, an economic and a technical parameter will show the wrong threshold here.

Similarly, spoRequired "ParameterChange" = False unconditionally, but the ledger requires SPO votes (at pvtPPSecurityGroup) whenever the proposal touches a SecurityGroup parameter (fee params, max block/tx sizes, coins-per-UTxO-byte, ...). As written, the command omits the SPO section exactly for the security-relevant parameter changes where it matters most.

Both need to inspect the ParameterChange payload's PParamsUpdate and derive the touched groups, as the ledger does, rather than dispatching on the action tag alone.

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T13:49:44Z

+          activeNR      = Map.filter (\v -> isActive v && not (isResigned v)) memberJsons
+          resignedCount = Map.size $ Map.filter (\v -> isActive v && isResigned v) memberJsons
+          expiredCount  = Map.size $ Map.filter (\v -> getStatus v == Just "Expired") memberJsons
+          totalInState  = Map.size csCommittee
+          activeCount   = Map.size activeNR
+          yesVotes      = Map.size $ Map.filter (== L.VoteYes) gasCommitteeVotes
+          noVotes       = Map.size $ Map.filter (== L.VoteNo) gasCommitteeVotes
+          abstainVotes  = Map.size $ Map.filter (== L.Abstain) gasCommitteeVotes
+          ccRatio       = if activeCount == 0 then 0.0 else fromIntegral yesVotes / fromIntegral activeCount :: Double
+          ccThreshD     = maybe 0.0 (fromRational . L.unboundRational) csThreshold
+          ccNeeded      = max 0 (ceiling (ccThreshD * fromIntegral activeCount) - yesVotes) :: Int


CC ratio denominator disagrees with the ledger: explicit Abstain votes must be excluded.

activeCount counts every active, non-resigned member regardless of how they voted, but the ledger's committeeAcceptedRatio (Cardano.Ledger.Conway.Rules.Ratify) removes members who explicitly voted Abstain from the denominator as well (same treatment as resigned/expired/unregistered).

With the current code the reported ratio is systematically lower than the ledger's whenever anyone abstains, so the command can print NOT PASSING for an action the ledger will in fact ratify. Example: 7 active members, threshold 66.67%, 4 yes, 1 abstain - ledger ratio 4/6 = 66.7% (passing), this code 4/7 = 57.1% (reported not passing).

carbolymer · 2026-07-29T13:49:44Z

+spoThresholdFor tag L.PoolVotingThresholds{..} = fmap (fromRational . L.unboundRational) $ case tag of
+  "NoConfidence"       -> Just pvtMotionNoConfidence
+  "HardForkInitiation" -> Just pvtHardForkInitiation
+  "UpdateCommittee"    -> Just pvtCommitteeNormal


UpdateCommittee always uses the *Normal thresholds; the ledger switches to *NoConfidence when no committee is seated.

dvtCommitteeNormal (above) and pvtCommitteeNormal (here) are only correct while a committee exists. After a successful NoConfidence action (state of no confidence), the ledger uses dvtCommitteeNoConfidence / pvtCommitteeNoConfidence instead. The committee presence is available from the gov/ratify state already being queried, so this can be dispatched on rather than hardcoded.

disassembler requested review from Jimbo4350, carbolymer, kevinhammond, newhoggy and palas as code owners July 28, 2026 20:22

github-advanced-security AI found potential problems Jul 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cardano-cli/src/Cardano/CLI/EraBased/Query/Run.hs Fixed

disassembler force-pushed the sl/vote-check branch 2 times, most recently from 3f20389 to ff5173c Compare July 29, 2026 01:11

disassembler force-pushed the sl/vote-check branch from ff5173c to 7cc634c Compare July 29, 2026 01:39

carbolymer requested changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

carbolymer reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Add conway query gov-action-status command - #1401

Add conway query gov-action-status command#1401
disassembler wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
sl/vote-check

disassembler commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

carbolymer left a comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer left a comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

carbolymer Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

disassembler commented Jul 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Context

How to trust this PR

Checklist

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

carbolymer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carbolymer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

disassembler commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading