-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 609
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
bypass permissionless concentrated liquidity checks #6420
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM once CI is happy!
Need to add a changelog entry for everything to pass
fmt.Println("setting") | ||
fmt.Println(params.UnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist) | ||
s.App.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.SetParams(s.Ctx, params) | ||
fmt.Println("getting") | ||
fmt.Println(s.App.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.GetParams(s.Ctx).UnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: prints but I saw them being removed in a follow-up PR so good with keeping them until then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implementation straight forward and lgtm for me as well, I'm wondering why e2e is failing, Im wondering if it could be the new param that we are adding, might need to handle it in upgrades.go?
e17cfb8
to
0527c9b
Compare
I'm not sure why my e2e is failing |
This reverts commit 8779a3d.
There was an issue on Merging |
Important Notice This PR modifies an in-repo Go module. It is one of:
The dependent Go modules, especially the root one, will have to be Please follow the instructions below:
Please let us know if you need any help. |
…ed dependencies locally
Re-requesting reviews since I added logic on top of this, but logic that is required to properly initialize new params for this PR and future PRs. |
// Initialize the newly created param | ||
keepers.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.SetParam(ctx, cltypes.KeyUnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist, []string{}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This feels like something that the upstream SDK should automate. WDYT about opening up an issue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will open up an issue rn and link it here, good idea
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
e2e fix makes sense to me! Nice work @czarcas7ic and @sunnya97
Ah yes, this makes sense |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work on the investigation @czarcas7ic ! 🎊
IMO we should have an API for this upstream where we can pass in the param we are adding and then rest is taken care of in sdk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved, merging, thanks all
Closes: #6345
Creates a governance set whitelist of addresses that can bypass the normal pool creation restrictions on concentrated liquidity pools
What is the purpose of the change
Testing and Verifying
Documentation and Release Note
Unreleased
section ofCHANGELOG.md
?Where is the change documented?
x/{module}/README.md
)