Rc/v3.0.1.5 #972
Draft
Rc/v3.0.1.5 #972
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
All xMex fees to users
Coverage SummaryTotals
FilesExpand
|
|
Contract comparison - from 684bff8 to b280ca1
|
…okens Disable add liquidity for locked tokens
change undistributed rewards code
psorinionut
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
additional tests for add liq disabled
change disable add liq code
psorinionut
previously approved these changes
Nov 29, 2024
dorin-iancu
dismissed
psorinionut’s stale review
The base branch was changed.
Merge rc/v3.0.1.5 with main
Merge rc 3015 with main
psorinionut
reviewed
Feb 27, 2025
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[endpoint(transferUnlockedToken)] | ||
| fn transfer_unlocked_token(&self, dest: ManagedAddress, amount: BigUint) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The caller should not be given as a parameter. We should have an only_owner endpoint which sets the address in the energy factory storage. And we use only that. The farm should not have a saying in where the tokens are sent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Disagree. Not only farms will potentially use this, and they don't all have the same owner. We've discussed this previously.
| .direct_esdt(&dest, &base_asset_token_id, 0, &amount); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[storage_mapper("ulkTokenTransfWhitelist")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This storage is kinda like the same with the sc_whitelist_addresses storage, only that that storage has some extra contracts whitelisted in it. Not sure if we need the extra storage tho.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't want to reuse whitelists. It makes the code very messy. Nobody knows what's there anymore, why it's there, etc.
| ); | ||
| penalty_tokens.push(penalty); | ||
| } | ||
| self.handle_single_unbond_entry(&entry, &mut penalty_tokens); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keeping in mind that the previous version of token-unstake will go live in a few days, I don't think a new upgrade will be done any time soon. So I would avoid having any code refactor, as that will increase the difficulty in the release process, by bringing a new codehash. And anyways, it will not be deployed on mainnet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really don't care about code hashes, and I refuse to keep bad code around just for that silly reason. There's literally nothing to test, it's the same code.
| self.add_liq_enabled().set(ADD_LIQ_DISABLED); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn require_add_liq_enabled(&self) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if this would act in a reverse way? Not add liquidity enabled, but add liquidity paused. So you have to write in storage whenever you want to pause the adding of liquidity. In other words, we would modify only this module, not the implementation in other contracts. We could keep require_add_liq_enabled as is, but check the storage has something instead of being empty.
This would be helpful when upgrading the contracts, so that the owner doesn't need to call the extra allow function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...it was you who told me to do it this way, in this very same PR, and now you want it the other way again?
sasurobert
reviewed
Feb 28, 2025
| @@ -52,9 +52,23 @@ pub trait EnergyFactoryMock { | |||
| self.user_energy(&user).set(&energy); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[endpoint(transferUnlockedToken)] | |||
| fn transfer_unlocked_token(&self, dest: ManagedAddress, amount: BigUint) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can anyone call this function ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This contract is just a mock, so it doesn't matter.
| self.emit_unlocked_tokens_event(&caller, new_unlocked_tokens); | ||
|
|
||
| output_payments.into() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn handle_single_unbond_entry( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unstake refactor can enter. This is safe code.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.