-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
feat: order force withdrawal #110
Conversation
bf35056
to
581d0a3
Compare
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.
All fine, but do we need this in the main branch now if this just marks an order as withdrawn without actually withdrawing from it?
@fluiderson that part still WIP, way more work than expected |
5db1f32
to
0f6998a
Compare
0f6998a
to
fa3d853
Compare
Co-authored-by: Vova Lando <[email protected]>
linking issue for upper tx limit |
src/chain/tracker.rs
Outdated
if let Some(native_token) = &chain.native_token { | ||
(native_token.name == *name) && (native_token.decimals == specs.decimals) | ||
} else { | ||
assets = assets |
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.
why replace smart retain
and any
with primitives?
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.
@fluiderson ^^
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.
@Slesarew, this code takes names for assets from the config, not from a chain. The retain
method doesn't allow the mutating of the key value, hence filter_map
and then collect
.
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.
and why not from the chain? Taking those from chain ensures they will be accepted by chain and things will match as advertised, does it not?
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.
wait. Aren't these two doing exactly same thing?
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.
and why not from the chain? Taking those from chain ensures they will be accepted by chain and things will match as advertised, does it not?
Basically, I just removed checks for asset names from your code. Everything else is the same.
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.
If you don't get why, there's no such thing as an asset name for the Assets pallet in terms of the asset transferring, just IDs. Names are just a metadata for humans there. Now, the daemon user can set the same asset names as on the chain or name them on their own (with the checks, this was impossible). The latter feature was very much requested for testing purposes by the frontend team.
307fde6
to
5d1ab46
Compare
No description provided.