fix: Reject bid after delete should collect larger penalty

[codynhat]

Description

Fixes #91

Checklist:

• My commit message follows the Conventional Commits specification
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have tested my code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• My PR is rebased off the most recent main or appropriate feature branch
• My PR is opened against the main or appropriate feature branch

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3092993819

• 56 of 56 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+1.4%) to 90.013%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 3092150105:	1.4%
Covered Lines:	549
Relevant Lines:	593

---

💛 - Coveralls

[codynhat]

@gravenp As I've gone through the test cases, I think there is a different way to do this. Instead of having the payer pay more than the penalty, we could just no longer allow rejecting a bid if the payer deletes their flow. The bid period would immediately end and anyone can trigger a transfer.

So deleting your flow while there is a bid outstanding is the same as accepting the bid. Once it is deleted though, the depleting amount is taken from the for sale price the payer would receive.

Thoughts?

[gravenp]

@gravenp As I've gone through the test cases, I think there is a different way to do this. Instead of having the payer pay more than the penalty, we could just no longer allow rejecting a bid if the payer deletes their flow. The bid period would immediately end and anyone can trigger a transfer.

So deleting your flow while there is a bid outstanding is the same as accepting the bid. Once it is deleted though, the depleting amount is taken from the for sale price the payer would receive.

Thoughts?

If you're able to treat flow deletion effectively the same as a bid rejection window passing, that would simplify the accounting perspective for sure. Would we need to update the logic for the Needs Transfer window on the Cadastre to look for something different in the contracts? We'd still want to add the messaging about the reduction of sales proceeds for the intervening Network Fees regardless.

From a user perspective, I don't think it's unfair/unexpected that you'd lose your right to reject a bid if your stream is stopped.

[codynhat]

Yes, I think that logic would need to be updated.

We'd still want to add the messaging about the reduction of sales proceeds for the intervening Network Fees regardless.

Are you talking about Geo-Web-Project/cadastre#242? They could be prompted to trigger a transfer if their stream is closed which will immediately stop the bleeding of their for sale price.

Another case here is if the user deletes their flow and then reopens it. I think we should still not allow them to reject if they reopen. There could be some vulnerabilities here where they can take funds from the bidder.

[gravenp]

Yeah that ticket wouldn't fully apply anymore, so I'd modify it to add the appropriate text on the screen with the Transfer Parcel button rather than the screen with the Accept +(disabled) Reject buttons.

As for reopening the stream, agreed. Once a stream has been cancelled, the ship has sailed. The user has forfeited their right to keep the parcel uninterrupted.