Add IBC fees to IbcMsg::Transfer and ::SendPacket #1749
Conversation
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
add-ibc-fees
branch
from
f74623e to
a3994c5
Compare
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
add-ibc-fees
branch
from
a3994c5 to
1193666
Compare
| /// [ICS-29]: https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-go/blob/v7.2.0/docs/middleware/ics29-fee/overview.md | ||
| /// [ibc.applications.fee.v1.Fee]: https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-go/blob/v7.2.0/proto/ibc/applications/fee/v1/fee.proto#L11-L31 | ||
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Debug, Default, PartialEq, Eq, JsonSchema)] | ||
| pub struct IbcFee { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO This type is good for an advanced devs but I would consider it too complex for default devs. People would need to understand IBC to make proper use of these attributes. As in #1491 (comment) proposed, let's have a single fee field and split the amount in wasmd.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
People would need to understand IBC to make proper use of these attributes
That's an interesting point. When we are targeting IbcMsg::SendPacket users they better know this. However, IbcMsg::Transfer users do not need to know.
let's have a single fee field and split the amount in wasmd
We can go that route, yeah. However, this assumes wasmd can make better decisions than contract developers here. And right now I don't see how this can be done other than hardcode a split, which we can as well hardcode in cosmwasm-std.
| pub ack: Vec<Coin>, | ||
| /// The packet timeout fee | ||
| pub timeout: Vec<Coin>, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO it makes sense to pass an optional list of relayer addresses here, too so that the contract is in control who can receive incentives for relaying. This may be an advanced use case but should be covered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left it out in order to keep this type simple. A developer can access to full API by adding a MsgPayPacketFee instead of using this field. Do we really need it here?
No description provided.