feat: Relative Slippage Limits (PRO-1207) #4547
Conversation
|
Looks fine to me - some tests would be nice... |
AlastairHolmes
force-pushed
the
feat/PRO-1207
branch
from
519acb3 to
a0e8ae5
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4547 +/- ##
=====================================
- Coverage 73% 73% -0%
=====================================
Files 401 401
Lines 66210 66303 +93
Branches 66210 66303 +93
=====================================
+ Hits 48090 48117 +27
- Misses 15802 15861 +59
- Partials 2318 2325 +7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
AlastairHolmes
force-pushed
the
feat/PRO-1207
branch
from
a0e8ae5 to
c144792
Compare
AlastairHolmes
changed the title
| /// Sets the maximum percentage increase (in number of ticks) of the price of the brought | ||
| /// asset during a swap. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I think this merits a better explanation. If it's measured in ticks, it's not really a percentage. It's also not necessarily an increase. Also, I think the price could actually move by more than the maximum expressed by this number (because of the whole max/min thing).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ticks have a direct relationship to a percentage (1 to 1 mapping). It is a percentage measured in ticks.
Not sure what you mean by it is not always an increase?
I'll add clarification regarding the fuzzy nature of the maximum.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought ticks were multiplicative? They can be mapped to a percentage, but they aren't a representation of a percentage (not like pips/bips for example).
Re. increase - I meant the price can also decrease but I see you mention it's in terms of the 'bought asset'.
| @@ -962,6 +964,21 @@ pub mod pallet { | |||
| _ => Err(Error::<T>::UnsupportedCall)?, | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Sets the allowed percentage increase (in number of ticks) of the price of the brought | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be "bought"
…ero-liquidity * origin/main: fix: disable try-state checks (#4576) chore: debug solana in CI 🐛 (#4580) refactor: pass tx_ref as an extrinsic parameter (#4579) fix: remove bounded balance check (#4575) Solana: update image to latest tag (#4574) feat: add boost lp account to bouncer and fund it on setup_swaps (#4552) feat: Expose tx_hash on BroadcastSuccess event (#4561) feat: Relative Slippage Limits (PRO-1207) (#4547) chore: disable localnet solana in CI ⏱️ (#4569) feat: store prewitnessed deposits with id (#4496) Feat: Scheduled Swaps Subscription (#4525) # Conflicts: # state-chain/pallets/cf-pools/src/tests.rs
…utxo * origin/main: feat: expose command for broker fee withdrawal (#4581) Chore/fix arbitrum deployment (#4570) Added Range order pool price to the pool_price_v2 rpc call (#4548) fix: just check that the balance after is greater than before (#4587) chore: add origin to ccm failed (#4586) fix: runtime upgrade state check uses AllPalletsWithoutSystem (#4583) chore: add zellic audit to repo (#4585) fix: disable try-state checks (#4576) chore: debug solana in CI 🐛 (#4580) refactor: pass tx_ref as an extrinsic parameter (#4579) fix: remove bounded balance check (#4575) Solana: update image to latest tag (#4574) feat: add boost lp account to bouncer and fund it on setup_swaps (#4552) feat: Expose tx_hash on BroadcastSuccess event (#4561) feat: Relative Slippage Limits (PRO-1207) (#4547) chore: disable localnet solana in CI ⏱️ (#4569) feat: store prewitnessed deposits with id (#4496) Feat: Scheduled Swaps Subscription (#4525)
Note: I noticed the benchmarks haven't been run for a while in the pools pallet, and so the schedule_limit_order_update didn't have upto date weights. So that is fixed here too.