Skip to content
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

Single sided liquidity add breaking/recovery #1085

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 30, 2024
Merged

Single sided liquidity add breaking/recovery #1085

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 30, 2024

Conversation

amityadav0
Copy link
Contributor

Description

  • Single sided liquidity add breaking/recovery

What has Changed?

What specific problem were you aiming to address, and how did you successfully resolve it? If tests were not uploaded for this pull request or if coverage decreased, please provide an explanation for the change.


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

Deployment Notes

Are there any specific considerations to take into account when deploying these changes? This may include new dependencies, scripts that need to be executed, or any aspects that can only be evaluated in a deployed environment.

Screenshots and Videos

Please provide any relevant before and after screenshots by uploading them here. Additionally, demo videos can be highly beneficial in demonstrating the process.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 30, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 45.42%. Comparing base (24a97bd) to head (6385112).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1085      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   45.42%   45.42%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         956      956              
  Lines       36597    36600       +3     
==========================================
  Hits        16624    16624              
- Misses      18672    18675       +3     
  Partials     1301     1301              
Components Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions 78.61% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle 82.72% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper 85.41% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries 8.94% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions 100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries 65.04% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions 80.28% <ø> (ø)
amm_lifecycle 90.66% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper 73.59% <ø> (ø)
amm_queries 44.75% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_transactions 76.85% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
assetprofile_keeper 80.00% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_queries 60.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_transactions 0.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
burner_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_queries 62.01% <ø> (ø)
commitment_transactions 74.63% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper 86.17% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries 26.53% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle 92.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper 84.61% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries 26.78% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions 68.93% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle 82.60% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper 72.80% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries 32.71% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_queries ∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions 86.85% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle 75.43% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries 22.67% <ø> (ø)
oracle_transactions 27.27% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle 30.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper 61.11% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries 12.73% <ø> (ø)
parameter_transactions 18.86% <ø> (ø)
parameter_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
parameter_keeper 75.00% <ø> (ø)
parameter_queries 57.14% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_transactions 83.20% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper 90.47% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries 100.00% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_transactions 83.33% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_lifecycle 90.90% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_keeper 58.40% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_queries 61.32% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions 100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries 30.75% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_transactions 71.87% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper 80.00% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries 69.60% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries 11.11% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_transactions 74.29% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tradeshield_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_queries 21.55% <ø> (ø)

@avkr003 avkr003 merged commit dcd1cf4 into main Dec 30, 2024
74 of 75 checks passed
@avkr003 avkr003 deleted the swap branch December 30, 2024 11:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants