Subgraph Improvements #55
Conversation
| @@ -151,6 +151,8 @@ type Bucket @entity { | |||
| deposit: BigDecimal! | |||
| # total LP for all lenders in the bucket | |||
| lpb: BigDecimal! | |||
| # list of lends associated with the bucket | |||
| lends: [Lend!]! | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need a way to know all lends in a bucket whose LPB should be zeroed out on bankruptcy
src/mappings/base/base-pool.ts
Outdated
| @@ -220,8 +222,10 @@ export function _handleMoveQuoteToken(erc20Event: MoveQuoteTokenERC20Event | nul | |||
| // update to bucket lend state | |||
| const toBucketLendId = getLendId(toBucketId, lender) | |||
| const toBucketLend = loadOrCreateLend(toBucketId, toBucketLendId, pool.id, moveQuoteToken.lender) | |||
| toBucketLend.depositTime = getDepositTime(blockTimestamp, toBucketLend) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like this will always set depositTime to blockTimestamp (toBucketLend could not have a greater time) rather than setting to the max of fromBucketLend.depositTime and toBucketLend.depositTime - see logic here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated in: 039811a
src/mappings/base/base-pool.ts
Outdated
|
|
||
| // add new lend | ||
| const newLend = loadOrCreateLend(bucketId, newLendId, pool.id, transferLP.newOwner) | ||
| // TODO: should we simply use lenderInfo.depositTime instead of getDepositTime? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're already calling it on line 438, it seems safer to take the value. But the logic on line 437 seems to jive with the contract.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we also remove the getLenderInfo call for oldLend.lpb?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to use lenderInfo for depositTime in 5fd73b5
| // Redeem - transfer from PositionManager to lender, creating the lender's Lend | ||
|
|
||
| // event does not reveal LP amounts transferred for each bucket, so query the pool and update | ||
| // remove old lend |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment says "remove old lend" but the old lends aren't currently being removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On line 431, updateAccountLends removes the lend if LPB is zero:
Line 52 in d3806c0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least in the unit tests the Lends aren't being spliced even with zero lpb: https://github.com/ajna-finance/subgraph/pull/55/files#diff-865148f3208c67be9e4400503f5768dcc16d6880abb57e369ed24558c6eb8a22R1471
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically the Lends are still in the store, even though they are no longer being associated with the Account
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed; we're not doing a store.remove anywhere, and probably should be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lends are attached to Accounts, Buckets, and Positions. Seems when LPB=0 they are removed from Accounts and Positions, but not Buckets. We'll need to fix that before doing a store.remove.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added an additional updateBucketLends to _handleTransferLP
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So when someone redeems a position NFT, _handleTransferLP takes care of Account.lends and Bucket.lends, and handleRedeemPosition takes care of Position.indexes.
_handleTransferLPto reduce complexityhandleTransferLP&MoveLiquidity